SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Grainne who wrote (91399)12/15/2004 1:14:06 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 108807
 
edit
duplicate



To: Grainne who wrote (91399)12/15/2004 1:14:22 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I think the best thing our government can do at this point (as far as the US is concerned) is declare victory in Iraq after some pathetic elections are held, and get the hell out. Then we will blame the Iraqis when they end up with a Shiite clerical government. At this point the most we can probably hope for is that the Shiite clerical government isn't some repressive regime from hell- but that's probably a lot to hope for. And I guess a repressive Islamic theocracy will be less costly in human life than a civil war. In terms of saving human life, it probably would have been better to keep Saddam in place- his burn rate was significantly less than ours has been, and if there is more blood letting, especially inter-necine blood letting after we leave, it's going to take a long time to break even- grim reaper-wise.

I can't even begin to think why people are willing to put up with the cost. We could have done amazing things here at home, for our own security, with that money. I keep harping on it- but container shipping, container shipping, container shipping. Much more important for our domestic security that Iraq, as is the US southern border- and achilles heal if I ever saw one. Hope the neglect of real security issues here at home doesn't bite us in the ass.