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 (236442)	7/14/2007 9:44:36 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How convenient to assume that the alternate reality would not have involved, Saddam free of sanctions, unhampered by no-fly zones, massacreing the Shia and Kurds again, with oil billions in his pocket, going shopping at AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes? Have I mentioned something unlikely yet? You like that alternative? No, I don't like that alternative. And I don't think it was realistic to assume it. I know you do--you have repeated it over and over again over the years. So the "real" al Qaeda is only in Afghanistan, and all the al Qaeda bombings in Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, London, etc, etc are done by "fake wannabes"? No, but that is where the leadership was. It wasn't as decentralized as it has become. Perhaps it would have become decentralized anyway. But it would have been reasonable to finish the Afghanistan task before taking on the Iraq task, at least militarily. Bush was doing more or less fine until he decided to go it alone in Iraq. How convenient. Demand the "real" war in Afghanistan that you didn't actually support in 2001, and which was won quickly. Or were you demanding that in 2001 that Bush invade Pakistan to finish the job? If so, I didn't hear you. Um, actually I did support the bombing in 2001. You will look in vain for a word from me against it, except that he didn't go far enough with it. No, I wasn't supporting an invasion of Pakistan in 2001, but if it became necessary (and it likely would have in the ripeness of time, since the borders between the two countries aren't recognized by AQ, or, likely, most of the tribesmen in the area), then I would have. And if it was handled properly, so would most of the world. al Qaeda is networked war. It is a franchise. It is an idea. It is not located in one place, and the support it is getting from Waziristan is only a small piece of the threat - which is the support it is getting from Iran and Syria and from rich Arab sympathizers. It has morphed into something larger than it was back in 2001--in good part, IMHO, due to the stupidity of the actions of this administration. It didn't have to be that way. Attacking Iraq--a natural enemy of AQ, was not a smart thing to do. Why do I keep getting the feeling of deja vu all over again?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (236442)	7/14/2007 10:11:04 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

How convenient to assume that the alternate reality would not have involved, Saddam free of sanctions, unhampered by no-fly zones, massacreing the Shia and Kurds again, with oil billions in his pocket, going shopping at AQ Khan's Sam's Club for Nukes? Have I mentioned something unlikely yet? You like that alternative? I'll try this again....Since you think you're so darn good at figuring out alternate realities, telling us what's going to happen over the next year should be a piece of cake. And the good part is you'll actually be able to prove it. What's going to happen in Iraq over the next year? jttmab