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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (237173)	8/4/2007 8:05:21 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

Message 23763133 First, "liberals" don't want intervention in Sudan, some liberals do. I don't happen to agree with those liberals, but I am still a liberal. "You know liberals want intervention in Sudan. They talk about 'the UN'. That means us, effectively." If the world can't get it together, too bad. I'm not interested in the US jumping in because the rest of the world can't get it together. "Meanwhile,back in reality, that won't happen" The fact that the deficit won't change a lot doesn't mean we should add huge off budget amounts to it. I'm not interested. And I'm even less interested in sending the money overseas. At least when it's spent in the US you can hope for some overspill that benefits us all. ""You wish. Such a POV is blind." WRT Iran. Iran will probably have it's share of Iraq, imo it's just a question of time. Whether they do it with a puppet government, or in some other way, it's probably going to happen. I understand the threat of Iran, but we're SOL on this one. We rolled the dice and we rolled craps, and spending trillions in Iraq to delay the inevitable doesn't impress me as a winning strategy. WRT OBL, wishing to kill Americans, and being able to do it, are two different things. I don't see Iran being terribly interested in Al Qaeda taking over- and thus I don't see Al Qaeda taking over. And one thing about state actors, as opposed to non-state ones, is that they can be whacked if they are connected to a terrorist event. IMO Al Qaeda would ossify and become conservative about maintaining its power if it ever did take control of a state. States are much easier to attack. You assume power and possessions wouldn't change Al Qaeda- and I'm pretty sure it would. Revolutionaries have a habit of become conservative power and wealth hoarders once they get in to power. "We are at WAR. GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD! In 1943 FDR spent 243% more than the gov't took in because the US was at war. Do you condemn him?" WRT WWII. Everyone wants to hook their wagon to the star that was the last good war. Unfortunately WWII involved a country that had actually invaded several countries in Europe. So far Iraq is just a messy civil war, and presents us the possibility that the country will far apart and cease to exist. That hardly presents us with a Hitlerian problem. So while I do not condemn FDR for his spending on a war that actually did make sense (and would have made more sense had it been waged as soon as Hitler invaded Poland), I see no reason to use FDR's spending on a war that made sense, to justify spending for a war that didn't, and for an occupation that is going nowhere. Do you see the sense in that?