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: Sam who wrote (247989)	11/10/2007 9:23:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Have you listened to anything that the residents of Ramadi or Fallujah have had to say, about who ran their towns or what their life has been like for the last three years? You are in a liberal bubble, along with Kos and the lefty blogosphere. The facts you liked in Iraq were the facts of late 2006, when the US was losing, so you don't want to hear any new facts. If the well-armed and well-financed tribes of Anbar ever decide that they have had enough of us and we refuse to leave, we'll see soon enough who was in "control" of the area. They aren't particularly well armed or financed, either by Al Qaeda or us. That's why they turned to the Americans for help in getting rid of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda had the money and the suicide bombers. Of course, they have the men, they're local, they can make life difficult for anyone they don't want to be there, though difficult is not the same thing as getting rid of easily. They didn't get rid of the Americans, did they? If they are so all-fired powerful, how come they never got rid of the Americans? If the Americans were too strong for them to get rid of even with Al Qaeda's help, then maybe Al Qaeda was also too strong for them to get rid of by themselves, so they needed American help. Turn your stupid logic on its head, see how well it works.