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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21687)	10/4/2004 12:31:39 PM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

In the 1970s and early 80s, the Afghanis didn't "threaten" the old Soviet Union. They weren't protesting in the streets, crying "death to the Soviets" before the invasion. They didn't supply the training grounds for terrorist armies who then attacked the Soviet Union's largest city, killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process. Simply put, to equate the US invasion of Afghanistan with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is totally inappropriate, imo. One was pure expansionism, the other a response to a direct attack. Even our move into Iraq should not be equated to the Soviet's attacking Afghanistan. While I don't believe we should have jumped from Afghanistan to Iraq, the dynamics are so totally different from what the Soviets were doing that there's no reason for comparison. As far as "leading" the Iraqis is concerned, my point is that we need to withdraw as quickly as possible but we simply can not allow another "death to America" regime to be fostered. For all of the wrong things that have happened to Iraq due to this war, there are some positives that will eventually come out of this action. To suggest that the Iraqis should (or could) have ousted Saddam "on their own" is a bit presumptuous on your part.