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: Neocon who wrote (130334)	4/28/2004 4:07:34 PM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Boy you're at it too - another non-sequitor. I was merely commenting on the motivation of those who attack the people working for the invader. Liberator to you and the other cons

To: Neocon who wrote (130334)	4/28/2004 4:37:58 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Nice to know whose side you are on. It is as if you were defending hold- out SS for attacking those who cooperated with the Allies........." That analysis makes some sense with respect to the sunnis (though it is pure speculation, there is no way of knowing which of the sunni insurgents were part of Saddam's apparatus and which weren't), but given that the shiites were the oppressed parties (along with the kurds), I don't think a comparison of the shiite insurgents to the SS is warranted. I don't think this is a matter for choosing sides, obviously there is no possible way we can lose the military battle. The question is do we want to win the battle, or not engage in the battle at all. I am in favor of the latter. There are many historical examples of an occupying force overcoming a native insurgency; none of them paint a pretty picture, and I'd prefer not to be associated with that sort of thing.