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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (758074)	1/25/2007 2:10:15 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"America's national interest is to protect us against terrorists..if you can't understand that, then you are rather dim.. " That's just too simplistic. There are terrorists in Pakistan right now. In Yemen, in Lebanon, in Indonesia. Should we invade them all? Should we ignore them while we spend billions in Iraq forever? Tell me this: If a Shia death squad pulls a bunch of Sunni tradesmen out of their homes, ties their hands behind their backs, executes them and then the Sunni's retaliate by killing the relatives of those Shia.....what has that got to do with our fight with "terrorism". It is the sectarian civil war most of us think is a waste of America's money, blood and time. We can fight terrorism better elsewhere, believe me. In a few weeks everyone will be echoing what Buddy has been saying here for months: Pull our troops back to the borders of Iraq and let the Iraqis settle interenal Iraqi problems. We will still be in the region, but not in the middle. If this helps bring Iraq to its senses, great. McCain is already hinting at it. Hagel has said the same thing.

To: sandintoes who wrote (758074)	1/26/2007 10:21:25 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "America's national interest is to protect us against terrorists.." That is one part of what's in our 'national interest', Sandy. ('Terrorism' being just a TACTIC though, not a particular cause or movement or enemy... that makes your statement just a smaller part of our 'national interest'....) *Of course, PROTECTING and DEFENDING against all threats* is a much larger part of that same American 'national interest'.** But... of course none of the above (your words, or mine) disagrees even one WHIT with what I said earlier! (It's not even the same topic :-) My previous comment, again: It is more important to stand up for AMERICA'S national interests and strategic long-term goals, then for any temporary political occupant of an elected office. The two things are NOT the same. Like Mark Twain said: "My country all the time, and my leaders when they are right."