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: JBTFD who wrote (208993)	11/23/2006 1:33:52 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I think the reason others may not have answered as you did was that they are not so totally naive as to believe everything the administration says and take it at face value. I think no one answered your question because no one seems interested in having a dialogue with you. The question was easy, the lack of an answer indicates a lack of interest on the part of others, not a lack of knowledge. Post something interesting and people will respond. You seem to be a minority in that respect. You seem to have bought the rhetoric of the administration hook line and sinker. I'm sure you probably believe that terrorists attack us because they "hate freedom" also. Well you've certainly taken the easy path. You don't have to think AT ALL. Just accept blindly the administration's pablum and check any kind of critical thinking process at the door. You are a perfect example of what the powers that be would like us to be. I didn't say anything about my own thoughts on the administration or the plan to win in Iraq, I just answered your boring question. You shouldn't assume I've blindly accepted anything the administration says just because I've spent 1 minute explaining to you the Republican plan for victory in Iraq (after you requested in 23 times). What in my posts lead you to believe I think terrorist attack us because they hate freedom? I didn't post anything about terrorist or their motivations.

To: JBTFD who wrote (208993)	11/23/2006 12:33:24 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

A comment on "winning" in Iraq from Paul at Powerline: As one might expect, the question of whether we're winning turns on how one defines winning. If it means stabilizing Baghdad, we're not winning and probably cannot win at any sustainable cost. If winning means killing lots of bad guys and making sure that neither the Iranians nor Al Qaeda has a proxy state on Iraqi soil, we've been doing OK and can do better. The problem is that the Dem's and the MSM, by defining victory in the first (unattainable) way, dramatically increase the odds that we will give up on [seeking] victory in the second (attainable) sense.