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: Alighieri who wrote (235219)	6/1/2005 10:17:47 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572361

If we leave now, I believe we'll have to deal with the mess later under more dire circumnstances. Who says we would have to deal with anything later? We could also choose to ignore that mess just like you suggested we should have ignored Saddam and left him in power in the first place. You sway like a pendulum, Ali. Wind getting stronger? Taro

To: Alighieri who wrote (235219)	6/1/2005 10:27:04 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572361

That's a puerile oversimplification... What's puerile? I am not sure where you've been, but the "latest" of the post (no WMDs there) reality policy and ever morphing bush goals is democracy throughout the region (and world). So. That doesn't dispute the fact that if the Iraqis fail to form a stable, civil society the main losers will be the Iraqis. If a president's policy fails, the US generally does fine. Look at Clinton and health care reform. Got killed within a year, back in '96. The US was fine. If GB's goal of bringing democracy to the region fails, the US won't fade away into oblivion. Don't you agree? Unfortunately I see no other option but to continue to build up Iraqi forces and hope they can eventually contain and steer their unfortunate miserable country. If we leave now, I believe we'll have to deal with the mess later under more dire circumnstances. Well on this we agree. I would say the sooner the coalition leaves the better, however. It's only a quagmire if the coalition decides to stay until 2 years pass without an explosion. I'd say an announcement that troops are going to begin to leave in December 2005 and will be completely gone by December 2006 would be good. The Iraqis would have to choose chaos or a stable society that THEY will have to build. The presence of the coalition just provides an endless target for lunatic killers, and some bizarre moral justification for their killing (we are occupied by outsiders).