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 : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (8143)	11/27/2004 2:28:24 PM
From: lorne	Respond to of 32591

Denis. You made some really good points in that post, I will have to read it over a couple of times then make some response.

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (8143)	11/27/2004 8:12:08 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32591

Dennis. Like I said Good post. ....." the greatest danger that the US faces is economic and not terrorism. "..... I disagree with this. Islam terrorist attack 9/11 not only killed 3000 or so innocent people but also had a negative affect on the economy. IMO if the country does not have a feeling of security the economy will suffer...the islam terror must be stopped. ....." What have we really gotten so far from our occupation of Iraq ? I agree the the loss of even one American soldier is a terrible price to pay in the war against islam terror. As for what have we gained...well Iraq is now the worlds biggest islam terrorist magnet.... the world is now focused on islam terror as it is practiced in Iraq..... The muslim world is now very aware that islam terrorists will attack even their own kind if they think it will hurt Americans and because of this I believe it is only a matter of time until the so called moderate muslims turn against the radical faction using their religion.....the world of islam now knows in no uncertain terms that the USA and the free world will come after islam terrorists wherever they are. I recall reading how most all of the islam terrorists had fled Afghanistan in the early part of the war...mulla omar has still not been found. So where did these terrorists go? which country are they in? which country should be attacked for harboring islam terrorists? I still feel that Iraq was the only logical choice.....if another country had to be attacked that is. ...." I'm dead serious, we cannot win this way, who in their right minds can believe otherwise."..... So how can we win? what is the correct way to confront radical islam terrorists...where can we confront them? At least in Iraq islam terrorists are coming from all over the world to kill Americans and unfortunately some succeed. American and coalition forces are in the heart of arab territory and IMO that is the place to confront islam terror. In their yard not ours. ....." Yeah, I know, Bush "Has Faith" on his side. Let me tell you, faith won't do us squat against Islam (easily the most obscurantist, inhuman, and false of all the major religions going.)"...... Agreed. ...." We should have stayed in Afghanistan for starters, and completely cleaned out the shtbags in the mountains* "...... It is my understanding that US forces are still there searching for the shtbags and as well Pakistan is also hunting for those filth. ....." I would have liked to see us get absolutely medieval with those creeps and warlords in Afghanistan, especially in those lawless mountain regions, out of sight of by now bored journalists looking for some scandalous scoop, because by now we would have gotten at least some of them to puke up what they know about where bin Laden and his team are really hanging out."..... Agreed. ...." It is going to take an absolute giant of a statesman to pull the US out of the hole we've dug ourselves. Not a clown like Kerry or an idealogue fool like Bush.*"..... IMO if kerry had won he would likely have tried negotiating with the islam terrorists...at least Bush is still trying to kill the Bastards and that is what IMO is required.

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (8143)	11/27/2004 11:27:01 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 32591

Dennis, The cost in Iraq needs to be weighed against the costs of the most likely result of the continuation of pre 2002 policies vis-a-via Iraq: eroding sanctions leading to the end of sanctions altogether, perhaps legally, perhaps for all intents and purposes. Then Saddam would have had his oil revenues and been free to go shopping. Consider the willing selliers: AQ Khan and Kim Jong Il. And of course Saddam would have been a willing buyer. Of course Saddam would have been triumphant, and the rest of the Gulf would have reacted accordingly. Can you just dismiss the idea, knowing what we now know? Was that a positive future we were looking forward to? The costs of action must always be weighed against the costs of inaction.