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: michael97123 who wrote (144304)	8/27/2004 10:21:15 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Mike, of course your theory will never see the light of day in terms of actual U.S. policy. The Bush people aren't constructing a reported 14 permanent military bases in Iraq with the intention of "being asked to leave." In addition, there must be some reason why both sides of the aisle seem to have gotten behind this "adventure." Still, if our "stated" goals of helping the Iraqis choose their path is a true one, your time line makes sense. I think that where you and I may differ is that I never accepted the reasons the Bush people advanced for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It didn't make sense in terms of fighting terror, it didn't make sense in terms of neutralizing a serious threat to America or their neighbors, and it really didn't make sense in terms of "helping those poor Iraqi people," as was obvious from the contrast with the Bush people's earlier pronouncements on the role of the U.S. as the world's policeman, and as became obvious from their prioritizing of resources from the time period from the fall of Hussein and until today. Oh well, we can dream of ways to resolve this without more and more lives and resources spilled into Iraq.