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: combjelly who wrote (559303)	4/7/2010 8:50:28 AM
From: Taro	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

So we should have left Saddam in power as the ME bad cop, right? In that case we should have started earlier and not voted for any UN resolutions at all. Because as soon as they were in place, we'd have the choice of losing face or acting, when he was flatly ignoring the UN decision supported by us, right? decisions do have consequences. Most likely the reason why China stays out of supporting anything of significance in the Security Council. /Taro

To: combjelly who wrote (559303)	4/7/2010 12:45:41 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

"If we had done what we said we were going to do, which is kick out the Taliban and stabilize the country, it would have been different." I don't think Afghanis are Iraqis. They've never had even a second-world state. They've beaten back invaders for millennia, and it's a proud tradition there. Even Karzai and his followers have a part, co-opting the invaders for wealth while really doing nothing to advance the invader's goals. Meanwhile, they keep growing opium poppys. I think Afghanistan is different.