SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (337638)5/15/2007 9:44:56 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) of 1574717
 
re: If We Exit

You guys really make me sick.

1. You lie to get this country into the worst war in our history.
2. You take a disastrous war policy and turn it into the most disastrous occupation policy imaginable.
3. You mismanage every step of every way. Corruption rife, torture accommodated, every tactical aspect done wrong.
4. Now, after all this, you try to justify continuing this obscene policy with more exaggerations and lies.

Listen to this crap:

"Unlike the past tribal chaos in Afghanistan and Lebanon, the sectarian violence that would inevitably be unleashed in Iraq would play out atop the source of the world’s second-largest known oil reserve—close by the largest reserve and the third largest. The power of our enemies to exploit these reserves would threaten the American economy far more than any consequences of our defeat in Vietnam.

Iran, with oil-rich southern Shiite Iraq as its pro­tectorate, would be in a far better position to ignore United Nations sanctions, pressure the Gulf sheik­doms to curtail their oil production, increase aid to Hezbollah, and threaten tanker traffic across the Strait of Hormuz. If Iraqi oil production were shut down, or if a large portion of it came under Iranian control, Tehran might enjoy increased prices, capac­ity, or both—a reprieve and an incentive for more aggression for a regime now facing economic prob­lems that threaten to destabilize the government and its costly nuclear and terrorist operations.

Most prominently, Russia and China would deal with whatever tribes or dictator ended up with the oil of Iraq—Russia selling weapons for Iraqi petrodollars obtained by oil sales to China. Europe is already Iran’s largest trading partner. Both would gain power—military and economic—at the expense of the United States and world stability in general. At any rate, the best guess is that oil prices would rise significantly, with potentially devastating effects on the American economy and on less-devel­oped nations at large.

But, whatever economic scenarios one can conjure, the common denominator in an age of ter­rorism, nuclear proliferation, and tight petroleum would be that America’s enemies would be able to sell more oil and buy more weapons without polit­ical, much less ethical, constraint. Iraq’s oil would serve the same terrorist purposes as Afghanistan’s opium—only without the outrage connected with the proliferation of heroin.

The promotion of Middle East democracy would, of course, be a dead letter. Instead, we would go back to past policies of “realist” appeasement. Prior to 9/11, we dealt with antagonists with missile strikes that lost no Americans and had little effect on ter­rorists. Did such conduct increase the likelihood of our being attacked at home in 2001? After pull­ing out of Iraq, would a reversion to these policies ensure another 9/11?

As America withdrew in defeat from Iraq, lead­ers in Pakistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the other Gulf sheikdoms would face critical choices. Should they trust an untrustworthy United States that once promised it would never abandon Iraqis and their new democracy? Or should these leaders instead ask America to keep at arm’s length as they make arrangements of convenience with vic­torious neighboring terrorists and other enemies of the U.S.? Our com­mercial, financial, and military responsibilities well beyond the Middle East are built on a trust that, likewise, would be irreparably harmed by our flight from the few thousand insurgents of Iraq.

Finally, consider the effects of defeat on the U.S. military. Our infantry forces would be vulnerable to the charge that America can only win conventional ground struggles such as the first Gulf War but is unable to achieve victory in messy wars of counter­insurgency, whether in Mogadishu or Baghdad.

Our enemies and friends would come away with two lessons: the United States is highly unlikely to intervene in any landscape replete with terrorists, and, if it does, the American media, politicians, and populace will tire once losses mount."


The entire fuking world will collapse if we leave Iraq.

WELL HOW FUKKING STUPID DOES THAT MAKE YOU FOR SUPPORTING THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Of course the guy offers no good scenarios if we stay. He doesn't say any of that horrible stuff won't happen if we stay. He doesn't imagine that worse stuff won't happen if we stay. He is only sure that the worst will happen if we leave.

More crap on top of the crap that got us in this fuking mess in the first place.

You guys are a piece of work. You deserve to burn in hell.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext