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: Joe NYC who wrote (412995)	9/3/2008 12:36:36 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575781

The fact we defeated al quaeda in iraq does not mean we had to topple saddam and thus create them in the first place. IF we hadnt gone in saddam and his sons queasy and sleazy would still be in place. I love both you and John. Its time for all three of us to be honest. 1. War wasnt necessary to fight al quaeda because there was no al quaeda there. 2. Since we did, todays outcome looks a hell of a lot better than last year and we should do what we can to encourage that good outcome. 3. That includes leaving as the iraqis want us to do in 2011. This is not hard. You and I were surprised by the failure of rummy and the strength of the resistance. JF now cant get his arms around republicans taking credit for success in iraq because things are now better. Its a giant clusterfuck in which both the best and worst outcomes seem to be off the table. So we need to accept the best we can get which is both out by 2011 and hopefully a unitary federal state with some trappings of democratic govt. For all of us its like kissing our sister but its better to do that than fight.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (412995)	9/3/2008 1:30:20 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575781

There was nothing to be gained at that point. There never was and never will be anything gained from the Iraq adventure (by the US). AQ was a tool of the Sunni "insurgents" in the 'enemy of my enemy' sense. You are steadfastly avoiding your own, and Obama's responsibility for advocating capitulation when we were behind. You try to (unsuccessfully) muddle it with what came before and what came after. And you consistently want to ignore the fact that the war should never have been fought in the first plus. A huge wrong and then a minor right do not make it alright. You're like the husband who had sex with another woman but claims he pulled out right before he came.....so it wasn't adultery. Its BS.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (412995)	9/3/2008 1:57:18 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575781

You are steadfastly avoiding your own, and Obama's responsibility for advocating capitulation when we were behind. You try to (unsuccessfully) muddle it with what came before and what came after. I never advocated "capitulation"... this war was wrong in the build up, it was wrong on day one, day two, day three and every day there after. Every single day would have been a good day to end it. The net result from this thing is disaster for the US, and no incremental tiny gain is going to mitigate that. The reason I am belaboring this point with multiple posts to you is because I have exchanged many posts with you in over the years, and i believe you are capable of being honest. I am being honest. I'm a pragmatist and look at results. You think some kind of face saving Republican political gain we got by paying off the Sunni insurgents (who were blowing up our troops with IEDs) changes the big picture. It doesn't.