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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288362)	5/17/2006 6:32:02 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570976

re: I remember George Stephanopolous said shortly after 9/11 that America ought to treat the terrorist act as a criminal act, not as an act of war. Given his ties to the former Clinton administration, I think his statement is an accurate reflection of what Gore's anti-terrorist policy would have been. Hence it's doubtful that Gore would have used the full might of the American military to invade Afghanistan. ANY US president would have reacted to 9/11 by going after bin Laden. Few would have been diverted by an alternate agenda. Bush USED 9/11, that's the worst sin. re: He might have under pressure from the American public, but any President can take action based on that. Instead of his born again religious delusions? Welcome to Democracy... not theocracy.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288362)	5/17/2006 6:45:55 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1570976

Gore would have given AlQueda a parking ticket for illegallly parking planes

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288362)	5/17/2006 10:48:34 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570976

Terrorism is a criminal act, the worst kind, unless it is being carried out on behalf of a nation. Then it is an act of war. Calling the need to eradicate Al Qaida a "war" is actually a misnomer, except with the possible exception of the invasion of Afghanistan which did officially harbor them. Apart from the Afghan situation, all other fighting against Al Qaida can only be seen as an intelligence and law enforcement task, using allies and sometimes Delta Force type SpecOps. But those SpecOps would not being waging a war, they would be used for infiltration and surgical hunter-killer strikes. So Kerry was right about this and Bush is wrong, especially when he suspends our civil liberties in the name of "being at war". The invasion and occupation of Iraq was onlky indirectly related to any "war on terror" and it actually ended up creating thousands of new terrorists and potential terrorists. it also greatly depleted our military might and may cost a trillion dollars and thousands of needless US deaths and maimings. Actually if you wanted to to go war against a country for harboring and aiding Al Qaida, the two biggest culprits would be Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both close Bush-Cheney allies. After that, Iran, but we have no real military option there. Also remember, the second worst terrorist attack we've suffered was not from an Arab group, but from Timothy McVeigh, a rightwing terrorist sympathizer of the Wackos From Waco. So terrorism is not by any means from one source. It is from multiple directions which are always changing.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288362)	5/18/2006 10:22:01 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1570976

America ought to treat the terrorist act as a criminal act Exactly right!. In criminal acts you go after the criminals. My mistaking the fight with Al Qaeda for a war, Bush jr. went after various nations like Afganistan and Iraq and now Iran. None of these wars stopped or deterred the criminals and only made the situation worse. Treating 9/11 as an act of war instead of an act of extortion was the BIGGEST strategic mistake of the administration. TP