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: tejek who wrote (213918)	12/28/2004 1:16:55 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572561

It might be that things will progress quickly and people will stop dying there needlessly, but history is against it. The US toppling a Middle Eastern dictator who ruled without question and without the support of his people is unprecedented, so I'm not sure what history you are refering to. The vast majority of Iraqis are happy to be rid of Saddam. The similar analogies in recent history are Poland overthrowing oppressive communist leadership, the Baltics kicking our oppressive Russian leadership, Spain removing Franco, etc. Perhaps the best might be the US removing Noreiga from power in Panama. In each situation, peace came fairly quickly. It looks to be one of those situations where a long term military presence, on the order of generations, will be required to keep stability. That has not long term win scenarios, it is just a struggle to maintain the status quo. Absolutely, as is true in EVERY country on the planet. It will be an Iraqi military, policing Iraqi civilians. I once thought that some sort of victory was achievable in Iraq, I don't think that any more. With the removal of Saddam's regime, there is no losing scenario as long as the coalition departs fairly soon. The Iraqis will be left to govern themselves as best as possible, and as soon as the occupation forces depart (or at least are significantly reduced), all you have is an internal guerilla war. If the guerillas win, they will likely be invaded and destroyed. If the Iraqi government wins, voila, peaceful democratic Iraq. The ONLY losing path is to keep coalition forces there playing the "Iraqi police" role.

To: tejek who wrote (213918)	12/28/2004 1:17:30 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572561

Good post! No, as I have shown, it doesn't even grasp the imminent conclusion of the occupation and development of an Iraqi government. Not a good post. Sorry. For the life of me, I can not understand why we don't learn from our past mistakes. Are you refering to TZOO's share price? Market Cap = $1.9 BILLION, trailing 12 month sales $28 million, I agree, the bubble returns! we delude ourselves into thinking we are this peace loving nation when in reality we are in some war almost every ten years. Kennedy's quote sums it up, something bear any burden, walk any path (or something like) that to promote freedom throughout the world. Peace is great, but freedom is worth fighting for. Have you ever lived in a non-free country? Those countries don't tend to produce freedom on their own; rather, they produce greater corruption and exploitation and oppression. During the past 4 years, I have had considerable difficulty reconciling the image of America as I was taught with the current reality. Current reality is the coalition forces are trying to hold an election to allow for a democratically elected government, and the scum of the earth are fighting against them in order to prevent a democratically elected government. It's obvious which side the USA should be on in that fight. What was wrong with your image of America as you were taught in that situation?