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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (507269)	12/10/2003 1:33:28 PM
From: Howard C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I think you're right, Ashcroft should declare Martial Law and cancel all elections. Waddya think?

To: Machaon who wrote (507269)	12/10/2003 1:58:11 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You would rather have a weak leader in the White House that would appease our Muslim enemies rather than confront and stop them. As such, you are an enemy of America because your "logic" would weaken us and expose us to more Muslim attacks. I can't imagine a weaker president than Bush. His weakness lies in his inability to make a proper response to the terrorists. You cite 9-11 as the reason for the war on terror. Sure enough, that was an act of war. And it was perpetrated by bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The proper response was to find him and eliminate him, and to destroy his camps and to destroy the Taliban which supported Al Qaeda, and to do as much harm to the Al Qaeda network as is humanly possible. Somehow we stopped working on this front, and even let bin Laden slip away in the night. We had the full support of the world, the UN and NATO in this action against Al Qaeda. But we stop in the middle of the action, and then divert most resources to Iraq? In Iraq we do not have the support of the world. Iraq is not an Al Qaeda haven. So we decide to take out Saddam. But Saddam did not attack America! This was a pre-emptive invasion of a country, that was not a threat to the US. We're spending billions in Iraq, not only on the war effort, but also on rebuilding the country. Rebuilding is really a misnomer, we're building the country. We're building the oil infrastructure, the roads, the sewers, the water systems and the electrical grid. This is not about the war on terror. It's about nation building. It's about lucrative contracts, which by the way are going to friends of Bush to a large degree. The only way the action in Iraq can be considered a front on the war on terror, is that a handful of terrorists have showed up to support the remnants of Saddam's supporters. We do engage these terrorists, and in that respect it is a war on terror. But it does not do anything to stop Al Qaeda and the sleeper cells and the network of terrorists around the world. Stop for a minute and think of how the terrorists operated on September 11th. Did they attack with an army? A navy? An airforce? No they did not. They attacked with 19 very well groomed and polite middle eastern men. They were just on another business trip to the unsuspecting eye. The next attack will be very much the same I think. It won't be done with an invading army. It will be a cell operating quietly and efficiently. They won't be noticed until it's probably too late. What are we doing to safeguard the homeland against such attacks? I'd say not near enough. We have not secured our ports, our chemical factories, our nuclear facilities or really even our airports. The war on terror won't be won by fighting angry Islamists or Saddam loyalists in Baghdad. It's going to be won by getting after Al Qaeda, and the other organizations that are designed to strike at the weak underbelly of America. Until we start directing resources at terrorists were actually ignoring the central front against terror. Calling Baghdad the central front on terror is just another lie. It's anything but central. It's a side show in the war on terror, and it does nothing to stop terrorism. Nothing! Orca