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: Elroy who wrote (212476)	1/11/2007 9:35:46 AM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Elroy, Your point is valid and I agree with you, however, the rest of the world was against going to Iraq. I do not think the rest of the world wants to get involved in Iraq's mess. Also, indirectly they are telling the US, "you want to be superpower, than solve your own problems. You (the US) did not and will not share the wealth, so suffer in the crap that you created". IMO, all the that time and effort that was invested in Iraq, could not only solved the ME problem but also the hunger and the aids problem in the world. Priorities of the US are a bit out shape.

To: Elroy who wrote (212476)	1/11/2007 9:50:02 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

We can't solve problems in this country. Why on Earth do people think we can solve them elsewhere consistently? Our dams are decaying; our roads are in terrible shape; our ports and borders are ridiculously under defended, as are our water and food supplies. In the US we have problems coming out the ying yang, which we don't solve, because we can't agree, or we don't have the will, or don't want to spend the money- and you think we can solve problems in other areas of the world where we have even bigger disagreements with the indigenous people than we have divisions here at home, and where the problems are even bigger than our problems here? I've never seen the logic in this. I understand people like to meddle, and countries like to meddle, but it so often turns out badly. It seems to me that the time to meddle is when there is a very direct and specific threat, and one should meddle to cure that, and not to do more. Bush knew he needed a direct and specific threat to start this- he used WMD, a "threat" to the US. It didn't turn out to be true, but it got him what he wanted, his invasion. This new tune, this nation building, or "let freedom ring" in the ME stuff, is just strange, and worse that strange, it's a huge waste of our money, and no one except Bush and his merry band of Neocons and the small number of people who still support them, would have supported that idea, and that is why the public, and their representatives, are so mightily opposed now to broadening this conflict, and making it even more drawn out and wasteful.