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 (240203)	7/6/2005 1:59:33 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576654

No, I don't think we should invade Pakistan. We have an ally in their leader, so we should pull out all the stops to pressure him to help with Osama and to pressure him for education of his people and reforms to his style of gov't, even if it means he gets elected out of office. At what point do you realize that something is a mistake and you reverse course? What are the conditions that lead to that decision? First, I have to say that I don't think Iraq was a mistake. I think there is a darn good case for Bush and the neocons siezing on WMD to sway the people to back them for an invasion. If that is ever proven, then I'd say put them in jail. However, I believe that the only way we get the Muslims in the Middle East to join the world community is to create some massive catalyst for change in the region that ushers in Democratic reforms in every country there. Only through true freedom and engagement with the world will those people lift themselves up enough to become partners in the world instead of enemies of the world. My first best choice for creating that catalyst was through advanced technology to wean the U.S. off of oil. Then through technology sharing arrangements with the rest of the world to get the whole world off of oil. The benefit is that it will solve the environmental issues as well. The main benefit though is that it will eliminate the sources of funding for the terrorists. As soon as the gov't in the Middle East can no longer rely on oil, they will have to rely on developing their people to create wealth and that means liberalizing gov't and moving towards capitalism. My second choice for creating a catalyst, if not focusing on alternative energy, was invading Iraq. It's a strategic place because of it's location. From there, the U.S. can have a base to impact every country around it, including Iran, which is today's largest sponsor of terrorism. So by creating a base for Democracy, that base can spread from the heart of the Middle East. So from the perspective of my large preference for focusing on alternative energies instead, I can say that Iraq was a mistake. But since Congress has proven to us that they are incapable of passing a truly revolutionary, sweeping energy bill, I have to say that invading Iraq was a decent second best option and not a mistake. One more twist: had I known that Bush and friends were incapable of executing the vision, then I would have been against it, even with the knowledge that no real energy reform was in the offing. A good idea with poor execution is just as bad as a bad idea. So in conclusion, I guess I have to say that Iraq was a mistake because this adminstration is failing in the execution and costing us more in lives, money, and global goodwill than was worth it.