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: Don Hurst who wrote (790628)	6/19/2014 12:15:05 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1583406

Obama Tells Congress He Doesn’t Need Permission for New Iraq WarExisting Authorizations Are Still in Place by Jason Ditz, June 18, 2014 Earlier this year, President Obama gave tentative support to the idea of repealing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq, noting that the war was over. Congress never pulled the trigger, with hawks arguing against it. Tonight, on the eve of a new US military operation in Iraq, President Obama is arguing he doesn’t need anyCongressional authorization for his new foray into Iraq, since the old AUMF is still on the books. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) agreed with this assessment, saying the AUMF still applied, and that President Obama was just telling Congressional leaders what he plans to do. President Obama has long downplayed the need for Congressional approval for his military adventures, and publicly eschewed any vote on US involvement in the attack on Libya, saying NATO’s decision to attack obliged the US to war no matter what Congress thought. The administration’s exact intentions in Iraq remain unclear, as they have withheld public pledges trying to coax Iraqi reforms, and most recently. the ouster of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They have ruled out “combat troops,” but seem to be willing to split hairs by arguing that ground troops they do send won’t technically be combat troops.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (790628)	6/19/2014 12:17:25 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1583406

US Poised to Strike Iraq, But CIA Has No Idea Who They’re Aiming AtAgency Lacks Intelligence on Where to Find Potential Targets by Jason Ditz, June 18, 2014 US officials are all set to launch air strikes against ISIS-controlled parts of Iraq, but are warning of a major “intelligence gap” in the CIA regarding where potential targets might conceivably be. And if US officials are saying that, that’s really saying something, as strikes in Yemen and Pakistan, upon which the Iraq plan is apparently based, have been notoriously inaccurate, killing a lot of innocent people on the basis of phony “ tip-offs.” With ISIS having taken a lot of new territory in Iraq, intelligence services don’t even know where to begin in acquiring intelligence, and the targeted air strikes seem set to be hugely unreliable. In Mosul in particular, ISIS has been restrained in its rule, and is trying to gain the support of locals. US air strikes, particularly inaccurate ones, are likely to add to support for ISIS, and anti-US sentiment.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (790628)	6/19/2014 12:22:28 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1583406

The Worst Effect of the Afghan War by Ivan Eland, June 18, 2014 As prisoners are exchanged and the combat portion of the long and exhausting U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan winds down, the brazen lethal attack on the Karachi International airport by the Pakistani Taliban graphically highlights the principal unfortunate legacy of the needless nation-building Afghan conflict: the destabilization of neighboring Pakistan. Although few in the United States dare say it, the U.S. military lost the war in Afghanistan a long time ago. As in Vietnam, if the weaker insurgents don’t lose, they win by just keeping an army in the field and hoping the stronger foreign occupier will tire of the conflict and go home. The American colonists used the same strategy to win their independence from Britain. After the U.S. forces leave Afghanistan at the end of 2016, the Taliban will likely be resurgent, and eventually most U.S. political and economic development efforts in Afghanistan likely will be reversed. Thus, unfortunately, much of what U.S. service personnel died or were wounded for will have been lost. Although extremely tragic, however, this bad outcome may not be the worst effect of the war. That would be the destabilization of nearby Pakistan, which has 100-200 nuclear weapons and an insurgency trying to overthrow the Pakistani government. The Pakistani insurgency originated from the United States turning the justified attempt to smash the main al Qaeda group into a ground quagmire in Afghanistan disguised as an attempt to remodel Afghan society. The origins of the Pakistani Taliban, the perpetrators of the attack on the Karachi airport, lie in U.S. pressure on the Pakistani government to send troops into northwest Pakistan for the first time ever in 2002 to try to root out Islamist militants using that part of Pakistan as a sanctuary to launch attacks against American forces in Afghanistan. A number of tribes living in that part of Pakistan believed the Pakistani government was trying to subdue them and began a civil war to overthrow the Pakistani government. Many of the Pakistani Taliban’s leaders fought the Americans in Afghanistan and still support that battle with fighters, supplies, and training. (Where the Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban disagree is that the Pakistani Taliban fight against the Pakistani government and the Afghan Taliban get help from it in their fight against the Americans.) According to Pakistani analysts, the spike in Islamist militancy in northwest Pakistan can be traced to the commencement of U.S. missile attacks in that region, especially the striking in October 2006 of an Islamist school in Banjur run by one of the Pakistani Taliban groups. In December 2007, the Pakistani Taliban was officially organized under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud. And after Barack Obama took office, the U.S. war against the Pakistani Taliban escalated. In August 2009, a missile from a U.S. drone killed Baitullah Mehsud. In retaliation for U.S. attacks on Pakistani Taliban leaders, the group declared in April 2010 that it would make U.S. cities a "main target." On May 1, 2010, the Pakistani Taliban unsuccessfully attempted to detonate a vehicle bomb in New York’s Times Square. Thus, instead of taking out al Qaeda stealthily using a small U.S. armed footprint – that is, the CIA, Special Operations forces, and very selective air strikes – the United States decided to invade Afghanistan, stay around to nation-build, and then escalate that nation-building. This foreign occupation and ensuing guerrilla war then necessitated pressuring the Pakistani government to send troops to northwest Pakistan to round up Islamists using it as a sanctuary to attack American forces in Afghanistan. This Pakistani government action triggered a dangerous civil war in Pakistan. The Pakistani government demanded that the U.S. strike the Pakistani militants with drones, which triggered a rise in Islamist militancy and the formal creation of the Pakistani Taliban. When the United States attacked the group’s leadership they then started attacking U.S. targets, including the Times Square bombing attempt. So U.S. government actions helped create the group and turn it into a threat to the continental United States. But the worst may be that a nuclear-armed Pakistan now has a potent insurgency to suppress. At least some chance exists that the Pakistani Taliban, through penetration of the Pakistani government, could get its hands on a nuclear warhead or that the weak Pakistani government might need to seek more domestic support by threatening arch rival and nuclear-armed India with war. As Lt. Gen. William Odom, former NSA director under Ronald Reagan, argued, U.S. involvement in Vietnam was counterproductive by advantaging U.S. communist rivals China and the Soviet Union and the U.S. invasion of Iraq had the same effect by helping the principal U.S. rival in the Middle East – Iran. Similarly, the U.S. nation-building tar pit in Afghanistan has led to the dangerous destabilization of the much more important nuclear-armed Pakistan. Instead of racing to conduct macho high profile military invasions and occupations of foreign countries – even after national tragedies such as 9/11 – the U.S. government needs to soberly weigh the costs and benefits of doing so. The long-term costs are usually steep and the benefits meager.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (790628)	6/19/2014 7:11:04 AM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Respond to of 1583406

LOL!! Nonsense.....one guys says they knew....despite all the evidence and all the Demolib statements to the contrary...not to mention that WMD was not the only reason for the invasion.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (790628)	6/19/2014 8:31:38 AM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 1583406

This is who koan wants as the next president. How about you Don? The Beacon goes on to recount what happened to the victim in this case Clinton is heard laughing about winning: The girl had joined Taylor and two male acquaintances, including one 15-year-old boy she had a crush on, on a late-night trip to the bowling alley, according to Newsday. Taylor drove the group around in his truck, pouring the girl whisky and coke on the way. The group later drove to a “weedy ravine” near the highway where Taylor raped the 12-year-old. Around 4 a.m., the girl and her mother went to the hospital, where she was given medical tests and reported that she had been assaulted. - See more at: thedailysheeple.com

To: Don Hurst who wrote (790628)	6/19/2014 1:47:28 PM
From: Bill	4 Recommendations Recommended By Broken_Clock i-node one_less Tenchusatsu Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583406

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted to invade Iraq. Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Biden (D-DE), Yea Breaux (D-LA), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Carnahan (D-MO), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Cleland (D-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Yea Daschle (D-SD), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea Edwards (D-NC), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hollings (D-SC), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Miller (D-GA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea