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: TimF who wrote (210060)	11/2/2004 12:30:09 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573943

>If we were going to go after bin Laden with as much force as was used in Iraq it would have made it easier for him to get away because of the time it would have taken to deploy such forces in to the mountains of Afghanistan. This statement is inane. More troops = easier for OBL to escape? This is just rationalization. With more troops, we could've surrounded the mountain range. -Z

To: TimF who wrote (210060)	11/2/2004 12:30:19 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573943

re: So once again the implication that we didn't go after Al Qaeda and bin Laden simply isn't true, as is the implications that we used grossly insufficient forces, or that it would have been much more likely to have killed or captured bin Laden if Iraq never happened. No, it's not. We didn't even send in the Special Forces. If we had focused on getting the top al Qaeda leadership, and used all the resources at our disposal, we would have had them. In the know folks have admitted we started drawing away the special ops assets in preparation for Iraq. Bush lost interest, and even admitted it. John PS The proof is in the result. Would you have imagined that 3 years after 9/11 we would be watch bin Laden lecture our President on TV?