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: KyrosL who wrote (104105)	7/5/2003 12:29:29 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

:-) "Why don't you advocate the same policy of neglect for Iraq? " There's the rub.

To: KyrosL who wrote (104105)	7/5/2003 12:40:33 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You are inconsistent LB. "Different strokes for different folks," KL. Afghanistan is a wilderness at the ends of the earth. It has no wealth or strategic value for us. It has a proven history of being ungovernable. This time we will maintain enough of a presence there to keep the Taliban types from taking over again, and work with Kabul in hopes that things will change. But we won't bet big bucks or people on changing things. Look upon it the same way we do sub-sahara Africa. "Benign neglect." We have no other choice in Iraq. It has wealth and strategic value for us. So we are stuck with fixing it. And those of you who don't like this administration will come along in the back seat, complaining while we do. The left in this country has become the "Mother-in-Law" of Foreign Policy. I am totally consistent about Policy, KL. Do what's good for us. That leads to treating countries differently. What you are advocating would end up with us pouring men and money into the worlds ratholes. No thanks. Remember, you didn't like it when we did it in Nam.