Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran Message Board

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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: sea_urchin who wrote (15790)	7/27/2007 4:53:18 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) of 22250

Re: Question: Once the US-Mexico border is sealed off, where will gung-ho Americans have to go to hunt so-called terrorists, criminals and drug traffickers? Answer: The furtherest mountains of Pakistan where Al Qaeda is alleged to be hiding out. I'm afraid it's gonna pan out the other way around... You're missing the Beltway's prevailing mood on the Iraqi mess (see the NYT article below). The problem for the next US President will be to find a way, an exit strategy, out of Iraq without giving the impression of throwing in the towel on Al Qaeda. And that's precisely where the militarization of the US-Mexican border will prove useful --as a face saver to the US pullout from Iraq. The deterioration of security along the US-Mexico border will allow the next Prez to kill two birds with one stone since US public opinion calls for both the US pullout from Iraq AND tightened control of the Mexican border. Of course, a terrorist outrage (allegedly perpetrated by Mexican smugglers) might be necessary to "nudge" the US government into action... But then, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, can you? House Resolution Rejects Permanent Bases in Iraq By CARL HULSE Published: July 26, 2007 WASHINGTON, July 25 — The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to bar permanent United States military installations in Iraq as lawmakers readied for yet another clash over a Democratic demand to withdraw combat troops from the conflict. By a vote of 399 to 24, the House adopted a resolution that would limit federal spending intended “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.” Democrats said the measure, the latest in a series of politically tinged war votes, was needed to make it clear that America had no plan for a permanent military presence in Iraq — a fear they said was fueling some attacks on American troops and building the insurgent resistance. “We must soundly reject the vision of an open-ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and an author of the proposal. [...] nytimes.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next