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: Alighieri who wrote (605407)	3/28/2011 3:15:36 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584064

and for the last time, iraq was contained and had no meaning to us. Any thinking person would recognize that Libya is far more "contained" than Iraq was (we weren't having to drop everything and run to Libya to put Q. in his place every time he got belligerent like we did with Saddam, and we weren't having to maintain military bases in the region to keep Libya in control). But it is beside the point. Even GATES has flatly denied there is a national security interest (which surprised me, as I considered there to be one). OBAMA himself cannot cite a national security reason for Libya. SO WTF DOES CONTAINMENT HAVE TO DO WITH IT? The point is that in Iraq we had both national security and verifiable human rights issues to justify the invasion. IN Libya, we've got evidence of NEITHER. What we do have in Libya is a decision to get involved in someone else's civil war. A civil f*cking war. YOUR RATIONALE FOR GETTING OUT OF IRAQ -- "IT HAS BECOME A CIVIL WAR, WE NEED TO GO". Hell, Obama invaded into the MIDDLE of a civil war. Bush sure as hell never did THAT. It is chicken shit and two faced to support the war in Libya after condemning the Iraq War. Now, you may not be one of the liberals supporting it, but more than half of Democrats do. That's hypocrisy anyway you see it.