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: cnyndwllr who wrote (247590)	11/7/2007 1:09:36 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

u are a disgrace by saying U fought for this country..did U get Ur talking points from Biden..that other plageristic scum?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (247590)	11/7/2007 1:28:48 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>" 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. "<< I just call it "smack"...saves typing...

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (247590)	11/7/2007 10:28:34 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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 Any sect that fails to vote in this country also finds themselves without political clout. 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. Now you're saying that the US designed the sectarian slates? It was what the US wanted? You're out in the fever swamps now. It was of no benefit to the US, quite the contrary, and only happened because elections were called too soon. If there's one lesson out of Iraq, it's that you cannot stage democracy on the cheap, even if the people want it (and the millions who dared terrorist threats to vote did want it). You have to build institutions and security first. People in the US, who have security and build cooperative institutions almost instinctively, forget that these things don't come naturally in most other countries. But then, this isn't really about Iraq, is it?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (247590)	11/8/2007 5:33:22 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Me: "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." You: "Note how you preface your remarks with "we." Yes. I also notice that it is a completely true statement supported by every document and allocation related to our current presence in Iraq. I notice it because the We are the USA of which I am a member. Any reasonable human being can notice that and just move on to the rest of the discussion with a head nod. Then I noticed how you (typically) try to bend that meaning. hmmmm oh well. You: "Now you come back and tell me how YOU "never supported the justification that we were in imminent danger of attack from Iraq," Yes. Another absolutely correct observation on my part. There were a number of issues and justifications going into Iraq, some of them I have mentioned to you and the imminent danger issue, IMO, was not justified as I have said, nor have I ever argued that it was. There is no contradiction . The imminent danger issue is not why we are in Iraq in 2007. We are there for the reasons given by our government. ”Current U.S. strategy -- the New Way Forward -- recognizes that the fulfillment of commitments by both the U.S. and Iraqi Governments will be necessary to achieving our common goal: a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror. The building of a strong strategic partnership with the Iraqi Government will be an important part of the effort to achieve this end state, which remains a long-term goal, and requires the application of all elements of national power, including especially diplomatic, economic, and political power.” It is and has been an evolving mission. Sorry if you haven't been able to keep up but you are busy continually doing everything you can to burden the rest of us with your wretched obsolete VietNam era issues, so it is understandable. "...that the other US interests in Iraq don't invalidate YOUR "interests in liberty and justice for all" Our current mission and reason for being in Iraq (this topic) definitely do validate that comment. ...and you dismiss the reality of a government, an army and a police force rife with corruption, sectarian based murder and brutality as I have dismissed nothing. Why must you blatantly lie? I have gone to great lengths to address the horrible circumstances in the region and have frequently posted those on this thread. Me: "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?" Everywhere in the world has loathsome corruption, Ed. You, for example, going to such extensive lengths trying to wring some weird false meaning from my statements, which you then label insidious. ...tsk. Stand up and be a man Ed, the great satan is not the US government. If you want to find the source of evil in the world, check first, the resentment oozing from your own heart.