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: Ichy Smith who wrote (200038)	8/29/2006 1:06:55 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No I was saying that Clinton had 8 years and didn't catch Bin Laden, George hasn't had 8 years, but, know what, it may be because he's hard to catch. No kidding, I made the point that he's hard to catch years ago. But you're not telling the complete story either. You're certainly not making any comparison to the environment or the resources dedicated to finding OBL. Prior to 9/11 we weren't about to invade countries to find UBL. The resources dedicated to finding him are a lot greater now than they were during the Clinton Administration. And I dare you to find anyone in the elected political spectrum that was proposing that countries be invaded to find him prior to 9/11. As far as I can Remember Saddam was continually rattling his sabre.</I. So what? That's what dictators do. In fact, that's what the US does. It's a game to demonstrate that the person uses to demonstrate they're in power. Kruschev was frequently saber rattling. He even threatened to bury us. I was not sure invading iraq was a great idea, and yet once the US was there, I did not and do not see how the US can leave. Casualties in Iraq will vary from month to month. Sometimes it'll go up; sometimes it will go down. But let's just pretend that it averages around the current level indefinitely. How many years or decades would you propose staying in Iraq? Indefinitely? You can drop a mirror from a tall building and watch it shatter into many pieces. It doesn't matter how often you claim it can be fixed there has to be some point in time where you decide it's broken and all you're doing is getting your hands sliced up trying to fix something that you can't fix. I am sorry, but I was fascinated at the idea that the President in the period that I believe he is called a lame duck president is actually a liability. Perhaps your experience differs, but it is actually a 2 in two hit. Even only looking at two events you have to fudge your theory: "So the ideal time to attack the US is between October in the year of a Presidential election and July or August of the next year, and possibly later than that, as there is a huge turnover in the heads of departments." 9/11 was in Sept; you said Jul or August, posssibly later. The least you could have done was claim your theory covered Oct-Sept. You think that AQ can predict US elections better than we can? Or you posit that UBL was sitting there in 2000 thinking..."Let's see if Bush or Gore wins before we decide to hijack airplanes. If Gore wins, we'll put it off to the next election." Picking two data points that a priori meet your criteria as a justification is quite lame. If OBL was actually thinking about lame duck Presidents he would have attacked between Oct 2000 and Jan 2001. No, he decided to wait until Sept 2001 to give Bush a chance at getting his Administration in some semblence of functionality. In other words, your theory is crap. There are far better statistical correlations between who wins the Superbowl and how the stock market is going to do the following year. There were over 10,000 terrorist attacks last year alone. Do you think they were all managed to coincide with some election in some country? Ridiculous. I have never heard of trafficking charges against israel. I have seen slavery charges against Islam, but never against israel. I wouldn't want to burst your bubble. jttmab