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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (67502)	9/25/2005 11:20:59 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

I do not know why the US continues to maintain those bases. Instead they are better utilized in the Homeland Security department to guard our borders (airports, Canada and Mexico borders etc.) I look at the problem this way. If I want to keep my feet clean, then I wear a pair of shoes instead of carpeting the areas I trudge such as roads, streets and palyfields. Going back to the Iraqi scenario, the terror activities (if you listen to the US press, since Iraqi press calls them freedom fighters) are the works of Iraqi citizens and not foreign mercenaries as claimed by the US. The Iraqis want the US military to leave. They can handle their own security with help from military forces of Arab countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia etc. The Arab military presence will be funded by Arab oil money and not the current situation where US taxpayers' monies are being used to get us to nowhere. Why isn't Bush moving to form a coalition of Arab armies to replace their presence? The US needs to get out of there and hand over the security to the Arab military. That was Colin Powell's thinking. But Bush saying no proves that he has sinister motives in Iraq.