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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (15160)	11/4/2003 6:38:17 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793622

If there isn't even an effort made to try to prevent another 9-11 or worse, then whatever else that is of concern won't matter. I can't argue with that point. 9/11 changed everything. What I'm arguing is the best approach to accomplishing that. I posted yesterday a suggestion that we could have taken the resources we put into Iraq and nailed down our border. In my mind, that more directly addresses making a "try to prevent another 9-11." What on earth would possess anyone to attack Iraq as the best way of doing that? While we're spinning our wheels and making a statement in Iraq, and perhaps doing some good in the process, we could have all sorts of terrorists coming across our borders. They pretty much have to cross our borders to do damage, you know. We can't be hit by a missile from Iraq. If we deal with our borders and better control WMD within our borders, that's the most direct way of dealing with the problem. Sure we could be doing other things, too, like improving intelligence and smashing terrorist hotbeds. But what could they have been thinking making an invasion of Iraq the centerpiece? I have had no response to that suggestion. All I hear is the assumption that the alternative to Iraq was sitting on our hands and waiting to be victimized again. It's knee jerk. Well I submit that invading Iraq was not the best way to accomplish what David Brooks so well articulated. It may not contribute to that at all. It may even harm the effort. It certainly takes resources away from other measures that might have been taken. Those hundred soldiers killed in Iraq could have been inspecting containers at our ports instead of lying in their graves. Why was putting most of our eggs in the Iraq basket the best approach? I've heard no answers. P.S. The purpose of the post to which you responded, in case you didn't notice, was to breifly flash my ruffled feathers at that lefty label. <g>