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 (735555)	8/28/2013 8:06:52 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Recommended By Tenchusatsu Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579772

I am not a huge advocate of the Iraq war either. And I don't think that WMDs were the real reason we were there. I suspect strongly that WMDs were the cover story to get us there. That the reason was a little more strategic than that. Having a military presence in iraq provided a local target for the terrorist types. Having a local target kept them off our our soil where they would be killing unarmed civilians. I don't necessarily agree with this strategy, but it was actually pretty effective for a while. The problems then came in when we were there under the twin ruses of WMDs and humanitarian efforts. Both were and are probably bullshit and in the long run make us look like idiots. We should just say that we are there to protect our interests and accept that people in many countries aren't going to like us regardless of what we do. The iraq war definitely had strategic benefits for the U.S., Having a presence in syria provides absolutely no tactical or strategic benefit to the U.S.