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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (17205)	4/22/2010 12:19:42 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

Interesting that you think the Republicans are better at foreign policy, when they disrupted the balance of power in the Middle East Ya think? That was the principal objective. by wiping out Iran's biggest enemy in Iraq, which empowered Iran to move ahead full steam at building a nuclear bomb. Iran has been working to become a nuclear power for years. Decades. They are moving ahead full steam -- and have been since the end of the Bush administration -- because there is no one to get in their way (Bush, presumably because of his lame duck weakness, caved in the final years and resolved their hands were tied, the biggest foreign policy failure of the Bush years). The Obama administration is weak and, frankly, doesn't know WHAT to do. The argument that American success in Iraq made Iran stronger is bandied about constantly, but notably absent is any evidence to support this claim. Much like the claim that GITMO created more AQ terrorists (I heard Richard Clarke repeat this nonsense this week). No evidence at all. Just people talking. Mostly leftwing whackjobs. In fact, it is likely the freedom in Iraq has had a positive effect on the popular uprisings in Iran in the last year (which naive Obama has badly mishandled, as expected). One could hardly call these symptoms of an "emboldened" Iran. And in the process, the Republicans managed to spend $1 trillion dollars on wars with no discernible return on investment to date. A ridiculous claim. A few months after 9/11, the vast majority of Americans believed we would face another major attack from AQ within the coming 12 months. Today -- as a result of Bush's "War on Terror" -- you don't hear anyone worrying about that. In fact, one of the greatest challenges of our government today is to keep people focused on the fact that it is STILL possible for someone to mount an attack against us, particularly, nuclear dispersal/chem/bio. Life is back to normal and it is precisely because the Bush administration eliminated the threat. Furthermore, we will shortly leave Iraq and there is a reasonable shot it will prove to be a functioning democracy that DOES affect the rest of the middle east in a positive way. We did spend 700 Billion or so on the war effort over 9 years. Still $150B less than Obama BLEW his first month in office. In short, every word in your post is wrong.