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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Voodoo who wrote (182181)	9/15/2001 7:08:10 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

This will have to be a global, multinational effort to seek out and destroy the enemy. I wonder. First the Europeans pass a measure allowing us to invoke the mutual aid clause of the NATO treaty, then suddenly they say, "Oh, but we didn't mean we'd go to war." Thanks lots. We saved their butts in two world wars, built them back up after WWII, protected then from the Russian bear through 45 years and Cold War, and now when we need them.... Britain, of course, is standing with us. And the Canadians. Which is what one would expect. I don't think we will have the same problem in Afganistan as the soviets When the Soviets were there, we were aiding the Afghanis which helped them very signifiicantly. They were getting slaughtered and losing until we gave them Stinger missiles to take out Soviet helicopters and jets. So, yes, it could be quite different. OTOH, fighting an enraged, determined enemy on the ground is always very tough. However, my largest fear is the resolve of middle eastern governments and their willingness to stand behind a protracted war or occupation inside their borders and perhaps even their alliance with us. Certainly cold be a serious problem. Will they do any worse than the Europeans?