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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (28558)	9/22/2003 8:42:23 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Obviously I can't speak for all dems, and I myself am an independent. But there are many, myself included that do not think pre-emptive strikes are appropriate to fight terrorism, UNLESS there is significant evidence of day to day operations backing by a central government. You maybe could make a case that we had that in Afganistan but Iraq? No way. And within that context I am skeptical of a government that lies to me. For example with Afganistan, we were fighting the Taliban there.... until about a week into it and then all of the sudden the Bush PR people starting calling the Taliban "Al Quida", as if Al Quida was a regime or something- wtf? I've got a solution to terrorism- how does this sound. Don't start wars!!!. Beef up the airports and airlines. Control the out of control visa situation (would also help the economy) AND police the borders! Put a small amount of federal money behind a centralized database so the INS and CIA and other gov't agencies could talk to each other. Sounds mighty simple doesn't it.