Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (103350)	7/18/2007 12:20:40 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

ooh!LA Times Criticizes>>Democrats Pullout proposal lacking a Plan B --Those who want troops out of Iraq acknowledge that sectarian violence will likely follow. By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer July 18, 2007 WASHINGTON — Lawmakers who have led the drive to bring troops home from Iraq have not devised a strategy to deal with the widespread killings that could follow a pullout, recent interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans show. Many of them acknowledge that Iraq may plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago. However, they said they would reject the use of U.S. troops to stop the killing. "I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who has helped spearhead efforts against the war. "The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that." Some proponents of a withdrawal declined to discuss what the United States should do if the violence increases. "That's a hypothetical. I'm not going to get into it," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.<<

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (103350)	7/18/2007 12:32:22 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I don't see how anyone could disagree with your statement, including the Bush Admin. The only qualified disagreement up until now has been about abandoning the Iraqi government before the Iraqi forces are sufficiently strong and stable. After that, there may be some disagreements about some continued American presence in a different role (Military bases, embassies etc.).

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (103350)	7/18/2007 12:56:07 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

…outside Islamic freedom fighters or al Qaeda terrorists as they are oft called.” A terrorist is a person who intends to harm innocents in order to bring a negative effect on his enemy. A terrorist group encourages some or all of its members to use this strategy. The strategy works. Terrorist events disorient societies by spreading fear among friends, families, or similar others who could be targeted. The fear is exacerbated by the fact that we have no way of knowing who will be hit, by whom, how it will occur, when or where to expect the attack. When the terrorist is ghost like it adds to the scary effect. The cumulative effect of not knowing the source or where or when it will surface, but that the event could be devastating, is a paranoid psychosis that is contagious. For these reasons terrorism is particularly heinous and condemnable. They are often called Al Qaeda terrorists when they are Al Qaeda members or serve the Al Qaeda agenda and they commit acts of terrorism. It is only inappropriate when we refer to paramilitary insurgents who are fighting in the open as terrorists. That is a corruption of the term terrorist. However, use of the term ‘freedom fighters’ is corrupt for the same reasons.