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: TimF who wrote (531877)	11/23/2009 5:53:58 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574439

Tim, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan has not been small. We've spent $1 trillion over the last 6 years on those wars. That would have been enough to more than pay for all the health care reform we would have wanted. Or even better, it would have been enough to pay for and guarantee an oil free future for the US. Can you honestly tell me now with 20/20 hindsight that you would have preferred to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan versus spending that money on renewable energy and oil independence? That is why I think we need to think very carefully before we commit any more troops to Afghanistan. By some estimates, a sustained 10 year troop surge with no guarantees of victory, which no military genius in the history of the world has ever secured in Afghanistan, would cost $900B over the next 10 years. I don't know about you, but if Alexander the Great couldn't pacify that region, what makes you think we can? Let's get the hell out before it becomes our next Vietnam and we lose our souls in the process. Read your history. Alexander's men had to become animals to fight the Afghans and they still didn't win. He had to broker a marriage to Roxanne in order to have his exit strategy. It wasn't a win. It was a face saver. We're now faced with the same.