SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (371168)2/17/2008 5:18:45 PM
From: combjelly  Respond to of 1573092
 
"I thought continued sanctions were the answer, not invading Iraq."

Well, given that the situation has gotten worse, it doesn't look like invading was the answer.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (371168)2/17/2008 5:49:08 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1573092
 
Ted, > The province, and its capital Baquba 40 km north of Baghdad has lived with intermittent electricity supply since the times of the sanctions under Saddam Hussein in the 1990s.

I thought continued sanctions were the answer, not invading Iraq.


I guess you missed the part where provision of electricity has worsened since the US invasion of Iraq.

Or we could just become isolationist like Buchanan and Mindmeld want.

If not invading a country that has done nothing to provoke us is what you call isolationism, then I am all for it.



To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (371168)2/17/2008 7:42:44 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573092
 
Ten, there's an entire universe between "isolationist" and being "world police", with troops all over the globe. The ultimate "isolationists" are the N. Koreans.

Why can't we just be like most OTHER countries in the world, engaged, but not militarily?