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: TigerPaw who wrote (205277)	10/5/2004 4:55:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573494

You want to send 100,000+ additional American soldiers in to Afghanistan and Pakistan? I'm not so sure that it would be a good idea. I'm also fairly sure that it wasn't going to happen with or without an invasion of Iraq. Tim

To: TigerPaw who wrote (205277)	10/5/2004 5:27:43 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573494

TP, Al Qaeda is the only group who uses the tactic of terror that is a direct threat to the United States. Correction: Al Qaeda is the only group who *used* the tactic of terror that is a direct threat to the United States. In other words, everyone became pretty damn sure of the threat posed by Al Qaeda after 9/11, i.e. when it was too late. Should we wait for the next attack before becoming pretty damn sure of future threats, like WMD? Only if you think we don't have the resources to pursue such a wide-ranging strategy, in which case, we ought to just brace ourselves for the worst. Of course, it's a lot easier to criticize Bush for what he did wrong than it is to propose alternatives that in reality are just as undesirable, if not more so. Hence my comment about "sitting around, second-guessing our leaders, and waiting for the next attack to hit our soil." Tenchu