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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (284351)	12/2/2015 12:42:50 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541627

I just saw Naftalli Bennett, a Russian Israeli neocon winger who is in Bibi's cabinet, suggest that all the West needs to do is send about 50-60k well trained troops to Iraq for about 2-3 months to get rid of ISIS once and for all. He doesn't say how that would be done without the Iraq or Syrian government's assent and help. Or why ISIS would just sit around in the major cities while the West (notably of course the US) was sending the soldiers. There are some really stupid guys in governments all over the world who just love idiotic military solutions to problems.

To: Sam who wrote (284351)	12/2/2015 12:50:40 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 541627

Tom Friedman only pretends to understand the ME. “Forget What I Said.” – Tom Friedman By Marie Burns: December 21, 2011 · For most of us, saying “I was wrong” is difficult. For Tom Friedman, Iraq War Cheerleader, it is impossible. In today’s column, Friedman returns to the war he is famous for boosting, sometimes in the most boorish of terms. Today he writes, Iraq was always a war of choice. As I never bought the argument that Saddam had nukes that had to be taken out, the decision to go to war stemmed, for me, from a different choice: Could we collaborate with the people of Iraq to change the political trajectory of this pivotal state in the heart of the Arab world and help tilt it and the region onto a democratizing track? In reviewing his columns from the era of the buildup to and early months of the Iraq War, it is true that his cheerleading was centered on nation-building, not on removing so-called weapons of mass destruction. In his column of January 5, 2003, Friedman wrote, “I have no problem with a war for oil – provided that it is to fuel the first progressive Arab regime, and not just our S.U.V.’s, and provided we behave in a way that makes clear to the world we are protecting everyone’s access to oil at reasonable prices – not simply our right to binge on it.” Two weeks later, Friedman again made the case for regime change in Iraq: on January 22, 2003, he asserted, “ Some things are right to do, even if Big Oil benefits. Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament – and that is legitimate – disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.” nytexaminer.com