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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (177936)	11/13/2003 4:21:04 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575900

I doubt that. And if there was such a force it probably would be 70 to 90% American anyway. How can you support your statements in light of what happened in 1991, regarding all the support and money we got? Get some objectivity...today iraq would be an international problem, not an American one, such as it is. Of course the crime is to have gone there to begin with...there was not threat then, there is now. Al

To: TimF who wrote (177936)	11/13/2003 6:53:10 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575900

And if the Bush administration had gone to NATO, the UN, the other ME countries with that reasoning, then there would have eventually been a consensus, and a multi-national force, to do the deed. I doubt that. And if there was such a force it probably would be 70 to 90% American anyway. Thirty percent would mean 45k more, desperately needed troops. Furthermore, if there was a united approach, surrounding countries might be more inclined to police their borders better and restrict the flow of insurgents into Iraq. As it is, we have most of the world hoping we will fail. Its why you have allies. Its why you go through the UN's machinations. Its what the current current administration is just starting to learn through OJT......a training lesson that's proving to be very costly to the American public. ted