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: GST who wrote (188344)	6/5/2006 9:10:56 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 281500

We can only know one thing with certainty: The unilateral invasion of Iraq by the US is responsible for the killings now taking place in Iraq. No, but we're certain that's the best the democrats have to run on... And that's a good thing., if you're a republican. Pelosi, Reid, kerry, kennedy, reid, all of my heroes! I wish they would give them more time on TV.

To: GST who wrote (188344)	6/5/2006 9:19:48 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

We can only know one thing with certainty: The unilateral invasion of Iraq by the US is responsible for the killings now taking place in Iraq. No.. the killings are taking place because Salafist/Takfirists have merged with FRE intelligence and political leadership to overthrow the democratically elected government and replace it with another totalitarian regime. Which puts people like you in a quandary. Because if you claim that Al Qai'da didn't have a presence in Iraq prior to Saddam's overthrow, then their current presence there represents an invasion on their part. And it's our responsibility to assist Iraqis in defending their country against this foreign directed aggression. And if you admit that Al Qai'da DID have a presence in Iraq prior to his overthrow, then you're admitting that Bush DID HAVE THE MORAL OBLIGATION to defeat that presence and prevent it from using Iraq as a safe haven. Which is it? For Iraq, the only options left are bad ones. Civil and regional wars are now going to be very difficult to contain and terrorism never had it so good. Not necessarily. Sure, the Jihadist will continue their attacks against the Iraqi people. And Sadr's Mahdi Army will continue to kill Sunnis and attempt to install the Shi'a version of an Islamic Republic, but in the middle will be millions of Iraqis who will eventually say "a pox on both of your houses" and give increasing legitimacy for a unity government that combats BOTH forms of militant extremism. And one cannot discount the importance of conveying to ALL MUSLIMS that Islamo-Fascists are just as willing to terrorize fellow Muslims as they are "infidels".. And sad and tragic as it is, the deaths of Iraqi people at the hands of terrorists REMOVES their ability to applaud the actions of Islamo-Fascists against the rest of the world. What the overthrow of Saddam has done is deprive the Muslim world of the false belief that Islamo-Fascism might be an attractive alternative to democratic government. This was not evident PRIOR to 9/11. Hawk