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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (37630)	8/13/2002 2:11:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

I don't think that America is "getting over it", it's just that Al Qaeda is such a nebulous target, and they did get pounded pretty well in Afghanistan. If it was clear that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack of September 11th, it would be a very different matter to most people, I think. As it is, the case against Saddam has to be built on US strategic interests, which requires more knowledge of the situation than most people have, or care to have.

To: LindyBill who wrote (37630)	8/13/2002 5:49:05 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

Lindy, The NRO article ticks me off. I am outraged at 9/11 and I see a very real threat coming from the militant Islam world and the fight needs to be fought. What do we get instead. A politically correct government wholly afraid to say that "fundamentalist/militant Islam" is the enemy. That our former allie Saudia Arabia is at great risk of becoming a de facto militant Islamic state. Given the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11, stabilizing that country would seem to be a priority. How about allowing Israel off the leash to fight the militant Islamic terrorist setting off suicide bombs all over their country. I want to get straight about the situation. We cannot tolerate any militant Islamic government that has the express into of killing Americans. Period. End of story. Instead, we get a cynical attempt to connect the outrage over 9/11 to Iraq, to justify a war there. A war with Iraq might be in the strategic interests of the US. It might be the best policy decision. However, with GB2.0 failing to make a compelling case in public, it looks to me like an attempt to fix a problem that his Dad created. If there is a lack of outrage, a lack of anger, it is not because it is not felt, it is because the president is not giving the people a way to focus the anger on an enemy that was responsible for the attacks on September 11. Bush has let the personal agendas of advisors with an axe to grind undermine his leadership of the country. The problem is that we don't know how to fight the new enemy. We don't know if we have the stomach for the tactics need for that fight. Instead of tackling the difficult issue, Bush is taking the easy road and fighting a war that we know how to fight simply because we know how to fight it. All action is not progress. Bush would do well to read The Guns of August. He has clearly not learned it's lesson. The Bush doctrine died when he took a diplomatic path with Palestine. He could easily rivive his doctrine and turn it into a rallying point for the country. For now, it is just sound and fury signifying nothing. Paul