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: SilentZ who wrote (223579)	3/12/2005 11:07:24 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 1573901

Z, Ummm... sorta... it's bad, but it's stable. Or it was stable. Not "stable." Just "contained." That illusion of containment ended on 9/11/2001. Tenchusatsu

To: SilentZ who wrote (223579)	3/13/2005 1:15:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1573901

Compared to sub-Saharan Africa, it's a utopia Its certainly better than sub-Saharan Africa but that is a pretty low standard. and I'd rather have us be there Sub-Saharan Africa not only doesn't have oil, but it has less of an international terrorism threat, and very little threat of nuclear proliferation. Also while the armies are weaker and there is less Islamic terrorism to worry about if we went in an knocked over their governments to try and set up a democracy there would be less specific prior justification, and more practical difficulties to deal with an infrastructure to build. If we could turn the whole place in to a collection of peaceful, stable, developing, capitalist, democracies for little more effort and cost (in financial terms, and in American and allied lives lost, and in locals killed) than we have put in to Iraq and Afghanistan combined than it would be worth it but I don't think it would be so easy, in fact I think it would be enormously hard while at the same time getting an even worse international reaction than the invasion of Iraq did. Tim