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: stockman_scott who wrote (63620)	12/30/2002 2:19:29 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But so does fear of "losing" the war begun on September 11. If we lose the war begun on September 11th, that means that Al Qaeda will have the means to strike us again where and when they choose (and I don't think anyone questions their ongoing motivation). Bush has good cause to fear losing the war, not just because it would mean a personal failing or personal temptation.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (63620)	12/30/2002 2:26:17 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Scott, Ellsberg was late. LBJ admitted that it was the political fallout from losing the war that he feared the most. And he doubly screwed up because not only didnt he allow us to lose, which imo, he should have, he also didnt allow us to win either. 50,000 lives later we lost anyway. So for whatever reason motivates Bush not to lose, he certainly should do everything to win with a minimal amount of American casualties. And that is our policy at present for better or worse. I do agree that Congress should be involved in the war declaring at least as much as possible in rapidly changing conditions not thought of in constitutional times. mike PS And this is different than vietnam. The only thing in dispute is whether or not iraq is really part of the war on terror or not. And thats a legit question.