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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. T. who wrote (12122)	9/19/2006 9:10:18 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

How many Chinese embassies has this Administration bombed? It appears that the Bush Administration is considerably more concerned about collateral damage that the Clinton Administration ever was.

To: E. T. who wrote (12122)	9/19/2006 10:37:59 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Your statement wasn't "Bush does not give sufficient consideration to collateral damage". (Which could be a statement that you could at least try to defend.) It was that collateral damage is something "this administration doesn't care about". Its nonsense and obvious nonsense, and none of your counter arguments support your original assertion. Not caring about collateral damage would mean that we would have leveled Fallujah rather than send in the army and marines. We would have surrounded it, shot anyone trying to escape and ran B-52s on carpet bombing runs over the city until we reached a point where each new run was just bouncing the rubble. If you want to debate some specific incident, then mention the incident and as much detail as you know. But realize that even if you actually have a good argument that Bush was to unconcerned in that specific case with collateral damage (and I don't really think you have a solid argument even for that), it doesn't amount to an argument that Bush is generally not concerned enough, and doesn't even begin to support your original assertion that he has no concern about such damage.