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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56581)	7/28/2004 1:01:22 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793970

Nadine, I believe that AQ and Osama bin Laden is largely our own creation: 1. We failed to respond decisively to the energy crises of the seventies via conservation, alternative fuels, heavy energy taxes, and nuclear power, thus freeing ourselves from dependence on Middle East oil, and the necessity to prop up and cozy up to regimes like Saudi Arabia. OBL's main objection was the presence of US troops in SA. 2. In retrospect, our active support of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan (via the Pakistani ISI) against the Soviet supported regime was a strategic blunder. This was what created Al Queda and OBL and it's debatable whether it helped the Afghani people. I also think that the war in Iraq strengthened AQ and weakened America and may prove to be a bigger strategic blunder than our support of the Mujahedin in Afghanistan. Finishing the job in Afghanistan and getting OBL was far more important, IMO. We are now left with two unfinished jobs and no resources to finish either. I am afraid that there is a non-trivial probability that Iraq will evolve into Afghanistan II in terms of Al Queda support.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (56581)	7/28/2004 6:39:48 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793970

Do you really believe that we made the problem worse by fighting back, that the enemy wasn't big enough or serious enough to require fighting? That our response created the danger? The way you frame your question assumes an either/or, black and white answer. Of course our response didn't create the danger. Of course the enemy is big enough and serious enough to require fighting. The issue is how big and how serious and how do we appropriately fight back. We can either increase or decrease a danger depending on what actions we take in response to the original danger. The choice is not a stark one between invading Iraq and rolling over.