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 : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: redfish who wrote (9608)	1/31/2004 1:43:24 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10965

I would have focussed on Afganistan and ignored iraq totally. I mean a total and complete dismissal of iraq as a "terrorist haven". Because I have thought all along and now am certain, that Saddam Hussein was a secular tyrant and not a religious one. The religious tyrants are the terrorists. Notice in the tyrant hotbed of latin america you don't see suicide bombers there. Of course now, with Iraq the mess that it is, it is a terrorist beehive. But not before.

To: redfish who wrote (9608)	1/31/2004 1:46:55 PM
From: redfish	Respond to of 10965

To answer my own question, what I would have done differently than Bush is to be much harsher with respect to Afghanistan. I would still be pounding them, civilian casualties and famine be damned, until Bin Laden turned up dead or alive. I would have made the nation even more of a barren wasteland than it already is. I would have put more heat on Pakistan, sure they have nukes but they can't stand against us. I would attack within Pakistan's border if I had reason to believe Bin Laden was hiding there. So there is an alternative argument, take it for what you will. The dem candidate has to offer up an alternative plan, simply rejecting Bush's plan won't get the job done.