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: michael97123 who wrote (191202)	7/7/2006 2:28:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

If you accepted the premise that we are overextended and that major problems exist in both afgan and iraq and you had to make a choice, which war would you choose? Well, the reality in Iraq is that it's no longer a war merely to overthrow Saddam. It's a war to defeat an Islamo-Fascist threat, as well as Al Qai'da foreign forces, that used the power vacuum in Iraq as an opportunity to coerce their own totalitarian ideology. So to say we're going to leave one war against Al Qai'da forces in order to defend against other Al Qai'da just doesn't seem logical. We have to fight, or at least confront, these Jihadists wherever they appear to be making a substantial presence. However, as an internal political strategy, what he's saying has a lot of merit since the democrats are definitely seen as lacking any spine on the war against terrorists and Al Qai'da. But will there be a negative repercussion for Musharraf in Pakistan if US forces suddenly increase their presence (as well as their demands upon his government for support and logistical bases? It could play into the hands of the fundamentalists in Pakistan and give them the edge to win an election. Hawk