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

To: TimF who wrote (340208)	6/13/2007 8:54:26 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574574

re: I never argued that we should invade and conquer any nation that supports terrorism in any way. Or even that the support for terrorism from Iraq was enough by itself to justify (in a practical sense) the invasion of Iraq. But it, combined with other actions of the Iraqi government, is enough to make the invasion something other than pure naked aggression. "Something other than pure naked aggression" is a hell of a low bar for invading and occupying a country. To the tune of $Trillions of dollars, 1000's of deaths and untold lives ruined through mental and physical injury. re: As for making Iraq worse, leaving now would be one of the things we could do that would clearly cause Iraq to take a turn for the worse. You know that 100% for sure? How? What's your solution... a permanent 140K US military presence? 4 years of steady disintegration of Iraqi society has taught you anything?

To: TimF who wrote (340208)	6/13/2007 12:37:36 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574574

"About oil" doesn't imply "not about terrorism" or "not about WMD". The terrorist and WMD threat to our oil supply was part of the reason for the invasion. Interesting logic. We had no substantial oil supply from Iraq, where there was no Alqueda terror presence, but we invaded it to prevent the non oil supply from being threatened by the non Alqueda presence who could acquire WMDs that did not exist. All of which was being accomplished by UNSCOM. In that sense it was indeed "about oil". "Its about oil" is a very imprecise phrase. It is the one "precise" sentence in the paragraph. The potential of the oil there, coupled with the notion that we could "shock and awe" terrorists into submission is what drove these criminal idiots to do what they did. They forgot that people who are willing to strap bombs to their chests just to kill infidels, particularly american infidels, are poor targets of intimidation. So now we have precisely what they sought out to prevent. Ain't it grand? Al