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: Brumar89 who wrote (351911)	9/26/2007 4:53:13 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574002

And its never dawned on you that they might not appreciate American arbitrariness? We're "arbitrary" because we don't want countries invaded, shipping shut down, and madmen with nukes? So be it. Pullleaze........I am not buying that spin so what makes you think the rest of the world is. We are doing what we thought was in our best interest. Unfortunately, its proving to not be our best interest at all. Apparently you approve of all these things and think we should acopt a policy of weak appeasement toward them. Nuts. The last thing this world needs is the neocon's bullheaded machismo. What you guys call appeasement, the rest of the world considers to be good foreign dimplomacy. -------------------------------------- Without the ability to defend themselves, the Jews would have all been killed or driven out. The Arabs drove all the Jews out of the Palestinian territories they occupied. I guess you don't know about the Zionist terrorist groups like Irgun that blew up the Hotel David in Jerusalem in the 1940s. And how do you think Israel defeated the 4 Arab states that attacked it in 1948.....with smoke and mirrors? They defended themselves by forming a country and army (which was illegal during the British mandate btw) which you would have wanted to prevent leaving them free to be massacred. So then you admit they were not defenseless....so you made the statement up above hoping that I would not know they could have defended themselves, didn't you. ---------------------- But what is true is that you think the US walks on water 24/7. We invaded Iraq because we feared their nuclear ambitions and abilities (you can read the case for the war in Ken Pollack's book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq). Come on....stop with the nonsense. We invaded Iraq because of a three letter word and the first letter is O. Iraq is strategically important because it has oil and is in a region with oil. But we didn't invade to steal any oil or get anything surreptiously. There are ways of taking another country's commodity without outright stealing. Yes, the fear Saddam would develop nukes was real. Pollack, a Clinton era CIA guy, said Saddam would develop them soon. Its what convinced me to support the war. If that was the fear, why didn't Bush let the weapons inspectors do their job? If he was sure Saddam was into the nukes, why did Bush announce they Saddam had bought yellow cake uranium when both American and Brit. intel told him it was bogus? In fact, Bush and Cheney worked very hard to convince a reluctant America to go to war. Stop drinking the koolaid, Brumar. ---------------------------- BDS and Blame-America-Firstism aren't principles and values. You think Osama, al Qaida, and Ahmadinejad have valid greivances against the US and are merely defending against America's evil aggression. You are full of it. You think by making such ridiculous accusations that you have some kind of moral authority over me. Well you don't......so stop making sh!t up. Just drawing reasonable conclusions from your positiions. On the contrary, you are taking on one of the favored tactics of the right.....if you are not willing to bomb the hell out of a country, then you must be with the enemyl. Sorry, Brumar, those tactics no longer work.