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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (183519)	3/14/2006 6:33:41 PM
From: steve dietrich	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I thought they wouldn't dismantle the Iraqi Army, maybe just screen them, after all it was just about the only employment available in Iraq if you didn't work for the oil companies. Instead they disenfranchised them, took away their means of support. Pure ignorance, and that wasn't even hindsight for me. They tried to use the manpower to win the war to occupy another crazy move. I thought Saddam was a nuisance for the U.S., and that maybe he should have been assassinated or a coup pulled, but didn't think him significant enough to justify a war. The Admin. needed a little common sense, not hindsight.

To: michael97123 who wrote (183519)	3/14/2006 7:57:58 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Even the wars we fight are reflective of partisan politics. If clinton is for it, a whole host of liberal types sign up; if bush is for it, its the cons--neo or not. Its like sports steve--we become fans, and facts be damned. Once again, you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, this has become the American way. So what do you think of the 1'st Lady stumping for a women Pres? Is she boosting Condi, or egging Hilary on? I'm a cynic, so think its the latter. :))