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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184973)	3/17/2004 1:07:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576328

Call it what you want, but if we followed your doctrine, the Taliban would still be around harboring bin Laden because no amount of intelligence or law enforcement is going to kick them out. Ten, you are so funny.........the Taliban are still around, harboring bin Laden. The one significant change is that they don't control Afghanistan. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (184973)	3/17/2004 1:40:22 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576328

Call it what you want, but if we followed your doctrine, the Taliban would still be around harboring bin Laden because no amount of intelligence or law enforcement is going to kick them out. No, because the Taliban were a government in a state. That means they could be persuaded or eliminated by warfare. A combination of warfare to end the nation-state protection of Al Qaeda with a stateless police action against the terrorists would have had a chance of bringing the situation under control. Instead there was confusion and a one answer fits all solution which worked against a nation state, but failed against the criminal element. When the administration lost the distinction between the words which describe terrorism or rogue nations, they lost the distinction in the concepts they needed to attack each problem with the appropriate tool. TP