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: tejek who wrote (204580)	10/1/2004 9:39:37 AM
From: brian1501	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572707

There is nothing simplistic about the notion that Osama attacked us, not Saddam. In fact, it requires some complexity to recognize that Saddam Hussein does not equal Osama. Actually it's the other way around. It's very easy to see that Osama attacked us, but not Saddam (at least in the same way, he shot at our planes regularly). To use this notion alone is a mentality that could have passed on 9/10, but not after 9/11. Post-9/11 we need to take care of threats before they fully materialize. I think I heard Bush mention this once or twice, but he did not drive the point home and let Kerry get away with his simplistic comparison. It boils down to would it have been better to deal with NK before they had nukes? Yes. Same thing with Iraq. Thinking the sanctions were going to stay in place is living in a fantasy land. Kerry's plan to deal with it would have been "more of the same" UN crap, which would have resulted in nothing happening to Saddam, and he would be free to continue his weapons programs on corrupt oil for food money. Saying "Osama attacked us and Saddam did not" is comparing apples and oranges. It's simplistic thinking, and Bush should have called him on it. After all, did Bosnia attack us? Kosovo? There are more things in the mix than a direct attack. Brian