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: Hawkmoon who wrote (183753)	3/19/2006 5:58:30 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<The other difference is that not only did we defeat the country that harbored the Islamo-Fascists (Afghanistan),> We don't hear much about how the British were beaten in the 19th century and the same would happen again if the USA dared attack Afghanistan. I didn't agree with that idea. The 21st century USA military is a little different from the Light Brigade [not that they were in Afghanistan]. Those tricky little Hellfire loaded Predators for example are little beauts. Spectres are no fun when viewed from the ground either. Nor night vision when hiding behind a tree, peeking out into the dark. Iraq could have been as much of a pushover if my NUN strategy had been followed. It was too much rip, shit, tear and bust - all action and not much planning. Too much shoot 'em up and not enough softly, softly, catchee monkey. Mqurice

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (183753)	3/19/2006 11:20:58 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What nonsense. You are showing that you are willing to take anything and everything out of context in order to "prove" your point. Neither the Nazis, nor the Japanese, succeeded in killing 3,000 innocent American civilians on the US mainland. Oh, so this means that the people who did the WTC are more powerful than either the Germans or the Japanese in WWII? lol... The other difference is that not only did we defeat the country that harbored the Islamo-Fascists (Afghanistan), we chose to take a step necessary toward pressuring the other corrupt regimes in the region to stop supporting/tolerating Islamo-Fascist elements in their midst. (a) Saddam and Iraq weren't "supporting/tolerating islamo-Fascist elements in their midst." Iraqi insurgents may tolerating them now, but only because the US is a more immediate threat. Once the US leaves, the Al Qaeda people will be booted out, imprisoned or killed. The example of Saddam supporting Al-Qaeda that you and others keep giving keeps ignoring the fact that that group was located in a Kurdish controlled area, not Saddam controlled. Other than that.. the analogy is VERY similiar. No, the analogy to WWII is crazy and empty. You should be ashamed of yourself for even using it. I would say Bush-Cheney should be ashamed of themselves if I thought that they actually had any sense of shame, so take that last sentence as a compliment.