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: i-node who wrote (390443)	6/11/2008 11:15:37 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574005

If we had had imperialistic intent for the region, with a war starting up in early '03, we certainly wouldn't have given up those bases so easily. They threw us out. What are ya gonna do go to war with them 'from within'? If Iraq threw us out do you think we should leave?

To: i-node who wrote (390443)	6/12/2008 12:33:23 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 1574005

>> Psst, we don't have bases in SA anymore You can thank Jimmy Carter for honoring the Panama Canal treaty when all the neocons said it would be a disaster to return control to Panama. We would be up to our neck in El- Cidas there otherwise. TP

To: i-node who wrote (390443)	6/14/2008 3:24:22 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574005

If we had had imperialistic intent for the region, with a war starting up in early '03, we certainly wouldn't have given up those bases so easily. Now, ted will remind us that we now have bases in Iraq and Kuwait, of course. But you see no connection with our desire to set up 50 bases in Iraq. Interesting.......... The reality is that the American presence in the region is not the problem. And that's because you say so and not because of any history. Ted, like many others, has basically overlooked bin Laden's history in favor of his propaganda. His history tells us that bin Laden was all about engaging the US at a time when the US didn't have a significant presence in the region. "No significant presense in the region"? That would have been before bin Laden was born or at least when he was a child. What the hell are you talking about? After running the Russians out of Afghanistan, he featured himself the slayer of all superpowers, and was ready to take on the next. Ah......Afghanistan. Will you guys ever learn? Afghanistan nearly single handedly brought down an empire. How long before we get run out? Do you think the US will suffer economic collapse before hand? And he was humiliated by the Saudis when they refused to allow him to "defend" Mecca. So, he set up shop in Sudan and got involved (along with Zarqawi, the Iranians and Sudanese) in essentially setting a trap for America (in Somalia). He was deported by the Saudis. I guess that's humiliating; however, some may say that was his intent. The bottom line is bin Laden is like the school bully who has it in for us, and wanted to pick a fight with us. And that's what happened on 9/11. (Not in '93, as he suggested in his earlier post on this subject). Now, he's apparently had his butt whipped, and has run off and hidden. Which is as good as we could hope for, I suppose. Let's see........bin Laden is "the school bully" while the US has 10k nukes, the largest standing army, navy and airforce in the world, and a military budget larger than all the rest of the countries in the world combined. What did you say your IQ was?