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: jttmab who wrote (186003)	5/1/2006 11:06:36 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I have noticed that he's getting more shrill lately. It must be the wrong track/right track poll by CBS. Wrong track: 71% That's the lowest their poll has registered in 25 years. Jeepers.

To: jttmab who wrote (186003)	5/1/2006 11:27:56 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Both of you are wrong (but that's no surprise). I just find it very ironic that "all of a sudden" you guys are all hopping on the bandwagon to send NATO forces into Darfur.... YET.. the situation in Darfur has been a problem for the past two years and I don't believe I've seen either of you discuss the idea of military intervention in the region until Clooney has his rally!!! So what were you saying about being "committed" to a particular political wing?? AND IN CASE YOU JUST HAPPENED TO DELIBERATE IGNORE MY COMMENT AS TO WHETHER I SUPPORT SUCH AN INTERVENTION... I reiterate that I'm not against such a military intervention. I just want to know what the mission is, how many troops you're willing to commit to the mission, and what's the exit strategy... All the very same criticisms that have been levied against the action in Iraq. So maybe y'all can quit your belly aching and targeting the messenger and tell us what you're willing to support in this exercise. And I'd like to know how you're going to respond when (not if) your initial plans (as in Iraq) don't survive first contact with the enemy. Btw, Sudan has a population of 40 million people. This is TWICE as many as Iraq. So if 150,000 troops wasn't enough in Iraq, how many is it going to take to "pacify" a country of twice that many people??? And while you're all reiterating the liberal pundits who are stating that we should IMMEDIATELY LEAVE IRAQ should it collapse into an all-out civil war (which one would think would launch a sectarian genocidal bloodbath), y'all seem ALL TO READY to inject American (and European) soldiers into AN ONGOING CIVIL WAR THAT HAS BEEN RAGING FOR YEARS!!! And apologies to Alanis Morisette, but "Ain't It Ironic?" And if that isn't enough, some 2.5 million Sudanese people are displaced and hundreds of thousands of others are malnourished. And considering the fact that the current UN humanitarian mission has been forced to cut rations by 1/2 due to lack of money, one has to ask WHY was this situation permitted to occur in the first place?? Where was the UN and all of those high-minded liberal elites while the current administration has been embarked for the past year in trying to get UNSC peace-keeping forces into the region?? Hawk