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: longnshort who wrote (699002)	2/14/2013 1:42:52 PM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574061

Obama’s 2nd Vacation of the Year: West Palm Beach 14 February 2013 Taxpayers will be sending President Obama on his second vacation of the year when he departs Friday aboard Air Force One for a Presidents’ Day Weekend excursion to West Palm Beach, Florida. Without apparent irony, Obama has decided to jet to a well-trod stomping ground of the rich just days after presenting himself to the nation in his State of the Union speech as the guardian of the middle class. Obama presumably will head directly to some fabulous golf course, having not been able to play in recent weeks because of the cold weather in Washington. While Obama may pay some hotel and other miscellaneous costs related to his vacation travel, taxpayers are on the hook for much of the expense, shelling out for the president’s travel aboard Air Force One, a cargo plane that carries supplies, and the cost of the president’s substantial staff and security retinue. While unemployment stands at nearly eight percent, Obama is taking his second vacation of 2013. The year is only six weeks old. Read More: whitehousedossier.com Read more: minutemennews.com

To: longnshort who wrote (699002)	2/15/2013 10:39:19 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574061

Hi longnshort; Re: "The no fly zone was part of the signed treaty Saddam made with the US." Where do you come up with this BS? There was no treaty with Saddam that allowed the US to maintain an air presence in Iraq. Splitting off the Kurds from Iraq would have been a disaster for US ally Turkey. The practical reason that it was better to have Saddam in control of "Kurdistan" is that we could expect him to keep the islamic terrorists under control there. Instead, by insisting on the freedom of the area, we let it fester and had to clean it out in 2003. Here's a reminder: Members of Ansar al-Islam mostly reside in Iran after a joint mission by the Kurdistan Regional Government's Armed Forces and US Army Special Forces destroyed the group's stronghold in 2003. ... In 2007 after major defeats by the KRG's Peshmerga's forces, Ansar al-Islam largely disbanded and splinter groups were formed, including al-Qaeda Kurdish Battalions. However Ansar al-Islam is still believed to be active in northwest Iran. en.wikipedia.org Here's more information on the situation that the no fly zone left "Kurdistan": Iraqi Kurdistan is an area of Iraq that until recently was protected in the northern "no-fly" zone by allied warplanes after the 1991 Kuwait war. The United States and Britain sought to defend the area from incursions by Saddam's regime (which was responsible for the brutal murder of hundreds and expulsion of hundreds of thousands after the 1991 war) but left the area to be governed by the Kurds themselves. The Kurds were successful in creating a semiautonomous region under an interim government. But northern Iraq lacked overarching central control. Opposing political factions—namely the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iraq (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)—held small hamlets of power, but they exercised no authority on the fringes of their zones. Those lawless fringes appeared to be the perfect spot to launch another jihad. meforum.org In other words, the problem was not just that we kept Saddam's forces out of the region. The no fly zone kept all stable government out of the region. We created another situation similar to the Afghan / Pakistan frontier and the same sort of Islamic terrorism festered there. The reason Islamic terrorism can't grow in a nation that has control over its area is that the national government gives an address to direct complaints about the terrorists. For example, if we let neo-nazis take over Idaho, and they started causing international trouble with Canada or Mexico, those countries could complain to the US. (And if we weren't a super power, those countries could cause problems for us until we fixed the problem). This is why the islamic terrorists were so happy with the situation in the lawless parts of Afghanistan. No, the real reason we were doing the no fly zone because morons in the US State Department believed that keeping our aircraft in the air would help someone in Baghdad push Saddam out of power. The policy was a "fail" in that this didn't happen. But the Iraq war was worse. We'll be paying for it for another generation. And no US planes were shot down by Iraqis. On the other hand, we weren't so lucky, two of our F-15s shot down two of our Blackhawk helicopters with 26 killed. If you can't recall "Stick a fork in them, they're done", then see the wikipedia article about it here: en.wikipedia.org -- Carl P.S. You can start your research with the wikipedia article on the no fly zones here: en.wikipedia.org or with the wikipedia article on the end of the Gulf War here: en.wikipedia.org