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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (81832)	9/16/2001 3:07:06 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 99985

LG, I guess you have misunderstood me or maybe I was not clear in my post. That would explain the language you used in your post. I am also for going after the terrorists. The battles have to be won on many fronts, which includes getting regional governments to help in this fight..that is the only way to win the war. To just go ahead and bomb a few targets in Afganistan is not going to solve the entire problem. The war has to be on many fronts including diplomacy. If one anti-American terrorist is eliminated, you don't want others to pop up in its place. This group probably operates in several countries and you need those governments on your side as well. To me, the US government seems to be taking a very calculated approach to this problem (at least I think they are). They recognize at this time, there is a lot of support developing for the US; you know that is happening when even an enemy like Iran is even using strong language to condemn the attacks. If Iran for example distances itself from such movements, there is even a possibility that they may start cracking down on terrorist activities within their borders. Much of the war will be won if middle east governments start doing this. That is what is needed to win the war in the long run. Getting Bin Laden is just one battle.