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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (735434)	8/28/2013 2:23:10 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB Jorj X Mckie joseffy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579707

" I think if we're not in it to win it" win it for who " al queda ??

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (735434)	8/28/2013 2:34:03 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1579707

>> I'm not exactly sure how we should respond in the context of Syria, however. It may work out just fine. Or, it may not. We may start something that needs to be finished. He seems to assume it will be like Kosovo, and maybe it will. But fundamentally, there is no difference between what he is apparently contemplating in Syria and what he so bitterly opposed in Iraq. On October 2, 2002, Obama said, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." What, exactly, makes this war any less "dumb" than the Iraq War? That the intent is for it to be limited? (See: John F. Kennedy, who took office with fewer than 1,000 "advisors" in Vietnam, and died with 20,000, before his successor escalated it to 500,000). Or more to the point, Rumseld's remarks -- "There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know." We simply do not know what an attack on Syria might lead to.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (735434)	8/28/2013 3:04:30 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1579707

>> America does have an interest in stopping the proliferation of WMD. Who'll be next in line to get the WMDs? They started in Iraq, moved to Syria, you have to figure Syria's moving them somewhere else about now.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (735434)	8/28/2013 3:11:40 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations Recommended By longnshort TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579707

America does have an interest in stopping the proliferation of WMD. The fear is that one day, WMD will be so widespread that there will be no stopping the next terrorist attack that will dwarf 9/11.I'm not exactly sure how we should respond in the context of Syria, however. Personally, I think if we're not in it to win it, we shouldn't even bother, at least not publicly. If that is our motive for engaging militarily in syria, then we will need to invade pretty much every other country on this planet. Syria isn't an immediate threat to us. If we are going after real threats, we should be going after Iran instead of its proxy nation.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (735434)	8/28/2013 7:32:22 PM
From: simplicity	5 Recommendations Recommended By allgoodmen Bill FJB MakeMyDay THE WATSONYOUTH Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1579707

At this point I believe most thinking, informed people suspect that the Syrian ‘rebels’ committed the atrocities in Damascus. The only conceivable reason Assad would have used chemical weapons against his people would have been if he were convinced his days were numbered and he wanted to go out in a sadistic blaze of glory. That is not the case. If anything, the ‘rebel’ cause is beginning to show weakness, and, for that reason, they have significant motive to create such a catastrophe, blame it on Assad, and hope that the West reacts in exactly the way it appears Barack Obama may be considering. Where do Barack Obama’s loyalties lie in all of this? By most accounts, the Syrian ‘rebels’ have close ties to Islamic Jihadists, including Al Qaeda. Why would an American administration want to support such ‘rebels’? As bad as Assad has been, he would certainly represent the lesser of those two evils, at least at this point. This president is exhibiting antipathy, at best, toward American interests in the Middle East (and here at home, to be sure), and continued support of radical Islamist forces, like the Muslim Brotherhood. There were rumors after the Benghazi massacre that the CIA was in the business of transferring weapons from Libyan weapons depots to the rebels in Syria when Ambassador Stevens, and the three other Americans, were murdered at the Benghazi consulate. If true, it would appear that this president was covertly/illegally (after all, a good part of everything this president does is covert/illegal) attempting to arm, and strengthen, the rebels back then. Now he may in fact be playing an integral part in the charade that claims that Assad is committing genocide, when in fact the ‘rebels’ he has been supporting behind the scenes may well be the culprits. And now he is considering major military action in his quest to see that these ‘rebels’ get the upper hand – all of this being planned under the guise of something other than what it really is. Any military action by this president will represent the worst (in terms of American interests, and American security) decision of his administration. And that decision will not be made in error. It will be calculated to achieve precisely what it achieves. As usual, this president is working against the best interests of the nation he purports to represent/lead, and his actions will not only endanger America, but they will endanger, and estrange, the few allies we have left on the globe. I hope his ‘hope and change’ supporters are beginning to realize that this looming cataclysm isn’t what they envisioned.