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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (172974)	10/20/2005 8:54:02 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I didn't support the invasion of Afghanistan, and I still don't. I would have supported hunting down and surgically killing the people responsible for 9/11 (and I said that)- and that might have ended in the capture of Osama, who Mr. Bush just never mentions anymore... But no, I did not support the invasion. Explain something to dense little me....I'm sure you will slice the salami quite thinly to somehow make sure your position is consistent, but anyway, here goes, and the response should be comic, at best, turgid at worst, but....how exactly would have Osama have been "surgically" removed from Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to give him up without somehow infringing Afghanistan's sovereignty, i.e., invading it? And, given the Taliban's support for Al Qaeda, wouldn't simply removing OBL "surgically" from Afghanistan without also remving the Taliban have also allowed Al Qaeda to continue to operate within Afghanistan's borders? Could AQ not have had a safe harbor from which to plan further operations against the US? Perhaps you can tell us how to have "surgically" removed the Taliban without invading Afghanistan. Neat trick, that. You are really amusing. Thanks for the comic relief.

To: epicure who wrote (172974)	10/22/2005 1:44:33 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So, you say you are willing to "fight" terror "surgically" as long as it doesn't involve invading any countries or doing anything warlike. I think your idea of fighting is to do little or nothing. Sending troops in amounts to invasion, which you rule out. Perhaps you would support surgical air strikes - did you support the Clinton administrations ineffectual cruise missile strikes in Khartoum and Afghanistan, perhaps? Such attacks amount to acts of war in themselves, of course.