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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (175948)	8/10/2006 8:44:41 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793658

Wonder if the anti-war ostrichs will EVER understand what is happening? Just as soon as someone offers a coherent argument for why war reduces rather than increases the risk of such incidents.

To: KLP who wrote (175948)	8/10/2006 9:10:36 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793658

Antiwar and ostrich just aren't synonymous, K. It is unfair to make them so. Going into Iraq was only one of the options in fighting terrorism, and it was one that many believed was a poor and even inappropriate choice. It had nothing to do with a belief that there was no such thing as terrorism, or that measures should not be taken to protect ourselves. In fact, one of the reasons we have been given for the war, is that we took it there so it wouldn't come here. That seems not to be working, I guess. Statements like "maybe now those antiwar ostriches will see!" has the same feel of glee as the conservatives claim the liberals have when they talk about the incipient civil war, a kind of "yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you?" mentality. I think it is wiser to not make that kind of polarizing statement, and to acknowledge that people can understand what is going on, but believe different options may have been preferable.