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: tejek who wrote (353338)	10/3/2007 8:21:55 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1587858

So it was okay to contain Saddam with troops in Kuwait but bad to put troops in SA. Of course, prior to the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam, which you have described as one of our sins against the Arab world, we had to put troops in SA to protect it from Saddam. I never said that liberating Kuwait was a sin. Stop making sh!t up. As to whether US troops in SA were an affront to the whole Muslim world, just post where someone other than OBL or other spokesperson complained about the issue. Here you go: "The "invasion" of Saudi Arabia by hundreds of thousands of Western soldiers during Operation Desert Storm caused a backlash among Saudi conservatives, and some liberals, who want to preserve Arabian culture and fear domination by the West. Some secular Saudis dislike the Saudi family's domination of the state and the corruption it breeds. More radical Muslims assail the royal family for allying itself with the infidel United States. For decades, the Saudis avoided publicly associating themselves too closely with the United States unless absolutely necessary." fas.org; Very well then. You support our inflaming the Arab world by liberating the "hated" Kuwaitis and preventing Saddam from taking Saudi Arabia too. You haven't sounded like that in the past but if that is your position, what is your gripe with US ME policy? -------------------------------------------- There has been poll after poll that clearly shows the degradation of the American image throughout the world. As for the three countries you cite, they elected conservatives; not neocons...with the possible exception of Sarkozy. And mark my words, if Sarkozy continues on his present course, the French will hate him just as much as the Americans hate Bush. The distinction between conservative and neocon is a liberal myth. Really. Apparently some righties believe in the myth: "The term neoconservative, used in that context, simply means ‘new’ conservative and there are distinct views and positions that go along with this ideology that vastly stray from traditional conservative views. Most notably among those views is the adoption of a foreign policy of preemption. Preemptive war and preemptive strikes are distinctly neoconservative, or old far left, positions and stray vastly away from the traditional conservative or Christian view of ‘just war’. " stanky.wordpress.com There is no theoretical objection to the concept of preemption for the vast majority of conservatives, whether "new" or "old". The primary conservative that rages against "neo-conservatives" is Pat Buchanan, who got less than a half of one percent in the last election. ------------------------------------------ At any rate, the new govts in Canada, GErmany, and France are much friendlier to the Bush adm. and its policies than their predecessors. Maybe anti-Americanism just isn't that big an issue to foreigners as our leftsists wish. Bush Continues to Unite the World... Against Him Message 23212791 I note that liberals prefer polls to elections. Maybe they're easier to rig to get the desired result. -------------------------------------- That isn't factual. Arabs wiped out the centuries old Hebron Jewish community. A number of other Jewish communities were wiped out or driven out. The Jewish population of Jerusalem was almost cut off and put in danger of destruction. A number of villages in Galilee that had held a Jewish peasant population which had never left Palestine were driven out of their homes by Arab violence. Link please. jewishvirtuallibrary.org en.wikipedia.org eretzyisroel.org en.wikipedia.org These occurred during the war between the Arabs and the Jews. Many Arabs died as well during that war. You really don't know what's happening in that apart of the world, do you? The Hebron massacre occurred in 1929. But it doesn't really matter whether all the incidents listed occurred during the 1948 war or not. Prior to 1948, the British were occupying Palestine and trying to limit Arab violence. But the British mandate wasn't going to last forever. ------------------------------------- Hardly. If you are not partisan, you don't have to look far to find things to hate about Bush. I am proud to say I disliked Bush on the campaign trail and voted for Gore. After he got elected, I grew to hate him. By your own admission you're a parisan opposed to Bush from the beginning. If Bush hadn't gone to war, you could hate him for allowing Saddam to remain in power and cite all the Clinton era evidence of Saddam's WMD programs. I realized early on what Bush was. That doesn't make me partisan. It makes me very aware. And if someone else had been the Republican candidate, you'd have hated him from the beginning too.