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: michael97123 who wrote (436872)	11/26/2008 12:08:31 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574005

So you were worried about Obama not moving to the middle, what do you think?

To: michael97123 who wrote (436872)	11/26/2008 12:34:03 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574005

Unlike vietnam, we can actually say we won this war, albeit not as planned and not with grand results and with a definite shiaa/iran problem not fully resolved. Not only can we "SAY" we won it, we WON it. And that win will pay dividends for decades to come. Ultimately, Bush will be credited with having the courage to do what had to be done. We may not be around to see that day, but clearly, what he has done in the ME has been an amazing success. Afghanistan is Obama's problem. Bush would have won it, and everyone knows that -- just as he won Iraq. If Obama thinks he can win Afghanistan just by flowing in troops he has another think coming. Having the troops is important (which is why we were treading water until Iraq could be drawn down). But ultimately, the Petraeus model of flowing troops and assimilation with the population is what won Iraq. Doing the same in Afghanistan is more difficult.