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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220646)	2/24/2007 4:36:51 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The war is obviously still going on. Nobody surrendered in 2003. Well I disagree. The war to remove Saddam and his threat to anyone and free the Iraqi people is over. The current action is more of policing an occupied nearly lawless area. Calling it a war leads to comparisons with WW2 and that kind of thing, and the idea that the USA is "at war", and causes loads of confusion. But that's just semantics, so not worth going into for too long. As for nobody surrendering, come on, their leaders are captured or dead, and the coalition has replaced them. They don't have to surrender - they're gone. They lost. The truer model is not WWII but the West Bank. Closer, but still pretty far off. Not sure how the Kurdistan area fits in with the West Bank analogy, or the formerly dominant but now marginalized Sunnis vs the formerly marginalized but now dominant Shias fits into the West bank analogy. It certainly helps them that the Arab world has no regard for life, even Arab life, unless the killers are Americans or Israelis. It is kind of amazing that there is this huge outcry over two rapes, and nobody whines and complains when busses blow up 100s of school children. The jihadists are aided and abetted by the multi-culti sensibilities of the left, that blames Americans or Israelis far more for accidentally killing civilians than jihadis for deliberately massacring civilians. The net effect is to make the Americans and Israelis fight with kid gloves, and it just extends the conflict. I think that's too simplistic. Say the US didn't use 'kid gloves' in Iraq. What do you do when a roadside bomb blows up a tank - destroy the entire neighborhood? The problem is not soft handed application of force, it's identifying the bad guys.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (220646)	2/24/2007 5:02:05 AM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

The Israeli/Pal conflict is the practice run for all of this, just as the Spanish Civil War was the practice run for WWII. What utter and complete nonsense. The idea is to dissipate war and conflict, make it disappear by providing alternate channels for dispute resolution including withdrawing from areas where we have no interests that are worth the costs. War and terrorism and violence and hostility are not inevitable for the human species. To think so and to say so is really immoral.