SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (307924)10/27/2006 8:16:59 PM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1571978
 
I'm not saying we cut back on our ground troop levels, but I am saying that we bring our troops home from all these countries, especially the ones that can defend themselves with their own manpower. We clearly needed our troops in Iraq in the beginning to bring down the regime and to ensure we found Saddam and his sons. Job done. Nothing more we can do. Why are we still there?

In Afghanistan, we needed our troops there to find Osama and Omar, but we failed because Rummy decided to fight by proxy using Afghanis. What a collosally stupid risk that was taking, considering that Afghanis are Muslims first and likely to sympathize with Osama and Omar over Americans, even if it means the loss of their freedom. Hell, it's the same thing we're seeing in Iraq. Anyway, I do think ground troops serve a purpose. But when we decide to start hanging out beyond a year or two, then we are occupying and that requires huge amounts of boots on the ground. But we have no business occupying. If the people of those countries aren't willing to die for their freedom, then there is nothing we can do to help them.

And frankly, I'm tired of giving billions of dollars to Iraqis who mostly squander it or embezzle it to enrich a few, while we have health care, social security and a host of other issues right here at home. Just stupid. They don't even appreciate what we're doing there.