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: Road Walker who wrote (408835)	8/21/2008 4:35:48 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575354

1. These are the former insurgents who were IEDing our soldiers. Isn't there some ethical issue with, essentially, paying them not to hurt us? Or rewarding them for hurting us in the past? Yes, but pragmatism sometimes has to win out. Keeping in mind, we don't know whether there is ANY truth to that claim or not. 2. If you are buying loyalty, when you stop, the loyalty stops. Maybe, maybe not. Over time, circumstances change, opinions change. Today, Iraqi's opinions of American soldiers are far different than they were a year ago, for example. Finally, by the same logic, with all the $Billions we've spent in Iraq, why didn't we just buy off the country before hand? Probably could have saved a bunch of $'s and certainly a bunch of American lives. Nobody has suggested such a tradeoff was ever viable. If we have to pay 250M/year for a few years to keep violence down until it is no longer fashionable that's fine. There is no indication that we could have done this in lieu of the war. It is just highly offensive to anyone who is close to someone who is making the sacrifice to hear you people denigrate their service. But that is what [liberals] have become. I would be ashamed, as an American, to make remarks like these.