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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (122616)	6/30/2005 12:11:02 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793916

Thanks for being specific. You list four points. 1) economic/energy interests 2) Iraqi casualties 3) Tone down the rhetoric. 4) work to rebuild international support 1) I see no one bringing this point up in discussion these days. It got some talk back in the "no war for oil," days, but is no longer contentious, IMO. 2) The media certainly features the Iraqi casualties. Do we care about US casualties more than Iraqi? Certainly! That's human nature, and will never change for any war. 3) We are at war with these bastards. That is the way you talk about head-choppers and baby-killers. Which they certainly are. 4) Europe is not going to get involved, no matter what we do. They don't have the troops to commit even if they wanted to. Their Military is a joke. We can pull them in to do occupation and rebuilding when things are peaceful, but they won't go in when things are not. To sum up, your points are things that offend you, but the sum of them, IMO, would not make a hill of beans difference in ending the Iraq situation. I suspect you were against us going in to start with, and now don't like us being there. We are there, and I don't see anything that you are proposing that would change what we are doing for the better.