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: SilentZ who wrote (190324)	6/12/2004 1:07:57 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1578101

Would it have taken so much time if we had sent 135,000 troops to Afghanistan instead of 17,000? You use the term "troops" loosely. The "troops" in Afghanistan are largely Special Forces. These are the right people for that particular job. The "troops" in Iraq are NOT the right people for the job. This is why I refer to those as "ignorant" who think the war in Iraq has somehow diminished the war against Al Qaeda. Knowledgeable people understand that the 17K troops in Afghanistan are those individuals who are needed to do a very specific task. The Left would have us believe that we have 170K troops in Iraq and Kuwait, and therefore there were only 17K left for Afghanistan. Were the Iraq War to end tomorrow, it would in no way affect the number of troops we have in Afghanistan. Nor should it. The United States has some 1.5 Million active duty forces. If more "troops" in Afghanistan would help them catch bin Laden, months before a presidential election, don't you think they would be putting more "troops" in Afghanistan? I do. The reality is they have the right number of people in Afghanistan to do the job that needs doing there.