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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58300)	11/22/2002 2:05:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Karen, that article concludes a) that because nation-building in Afghanistan is not going up to the standards that the author thinks should be followed, we actually lost the war in Afghanistan b) because Al Qaeda has not yet dried up and blown away, we have lost the war on Terror. Both these assertions are absurd. In Afghanistan, we overthrew the Taliban and cleared Al Qaeda out of the country. We won the war. Now, it is possible to win a war and screw up the peace (though I hardly trust this author's slanted take on what's going on there), but even if you do, it doesn't mean that you didn't win the war. Second, it is a war. Bush et. al. mean it when they say it's a war. This is not a rhetorical device. There is an enemy, and it is called Militant Islam. Though I must admit, Bush's rhetoric would be much stronger if he named the enemy properly. The word "war" has several implications: 1. There is an enemy, who is organized to fight you. 2. You don't need to worry about making the enemy mad. The enemy is already mad. You should concentrate on degrading the enemy's ability to hurt you. 3. You should worry about not driving neutrals into the enemy camp. 4. Fighting the war will take some time, and it may not be clear at times what is going on or which side is winning. This is particularly true in a war without a front line. To say that AQ still exists is to say that the war is still going on. It does not mean that the war is lost.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58300)	11/23/2002 9:45:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Good find, but bad news... Bad News?? We overthrew a government on the other side of the world, using primarily airpower and SpecOps forces within two months of 9/11?? And now we have the rest of the world scrambling to keep Bush from "going too far" by neutralizing potential bases and logistical sources for terrorism such as Iraq, and eventually Syria and Iran?? Oh well... I think Nadine answered this better than I willing to ... siliconinvestor.com But get used to it Karen... We're going to be attacked again. That's a guarantee. But what matters is where we're attacked, and at what level of sophistication. And just because we're attacked doesn't mean the war on terror has been a "failure".. Because no one can quantify the number of attacks have been prevented by our measures taken to date. And to "win" the war in a manner you seem to desire, neither you or I would like the consequences to our personal liberty and privacy. Hawk