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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (247500)	11/6/2007 8:18:13 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My gosh, what kind of person writes such quantities of drivel?

To: one_less who wrote (247500)	11/6/2007 11:22:36 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> As I suspected you have no factual basis for your claim. ROFLMAO!! Look who is talking! You of all people, who have persistently failed to show any factual basis for your position, should not make such a charge. Just what is your factual basis that the Bush administration has been motivated by the lofty honorable goals that you claim took us to Iraq? Their say so?!! Very funny. ST

To: one_less who wrote (247500)	11/7/2007 1:00:16 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Rough Cut, here's what you said: "We are not in Iraq to conquer Iraq, we are there to continue the struggle against tyranny and for liberty, justice, and autonomous self rule for a people who've shown their overwhelming interest in that, which are the underpinnings of our great nation." Note how you preface your remarks with "we." Now you come back and tell me how YOU "never supported the justification that we were in imminent danger of attack from Iraq," that the other US interests in Iraq don't invalidate YOUR "interests in liberty and justice for all" and you dismiss the reality of a government, an army and a police force rife with corruption, sectarian based murder and brutality as "True, although it is not a universally true comment there is certainly some corruption and abuse going on… Unlike anywhere else in the world, right Ed?" It's hard to take you seriously. The truth is that in that one statement you were wrong on why "we" were there, you were wrong on the capacity and the mood of the Iraqi people for liberty and justice for all Iraqis and you were wrong about the basic underpinnings of this nation...we've never been about telling people of other nations how they must lead their lives. And, you were very, very wrong in painting the war and occupation of Iraq in poetic, heroic terms. To that you've now added more silly erroneous statements, including your statement characterizing the Iraqi election as an "overwhelming vote for a representative government by the Iraqi people.." That's just about as wrong as wrong can get. The Iraqis absolutely did not vote for "a representative form of government." That, you ought to realize, was not one the choices on the ballot. They were allowed to choose from various slates of candidates. The choices were decided on Sectarian lines and any sect that failed to vote, (as many Sunnis did) found that "not voting" had a high cost. The US largely dictated the when, how and who of that election and the Iraqi "voters" faced no choices on who was on the slate of candidates they were allowed to choose from. How does it feel to be wrong on so many critical factors in the war while our soldiers are fighting, killing and dying in Iraq? So take your accusations of my "lying" and your faith-first, irrational happy-talk views to someone else. As I've said before, reality doesn't care about spin, it is what it is. And the reality is that all your "we have to do the right thing and hope it will all work out in Iraq be worth all the deaths, misery and suffering," is just that, empty, silly happy talk cheer leading a bad war. Ed