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: bentway who wrote (309954)	11/9/2006 2:44:15 PM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574260

It's a good point. Calling it a war gears people towards thinking we need our armed forces to solve it for us. Whereas, with terrorism, I would argue there a whole host of other levers we need to be pulling to marginalize the ideology.

To: bentway who wrote (309954)	11/10/2006 3:54:44 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574260

I do, because it was never a "war" to begin with. Any more than the "war on drugs" is a war. Its not only a military confrontation, but military action plays a larger role than in "the war on drugs". "The war on terror" is a poor name, more because of "terror" than "war". It is a war (that doesn't mean military force has to be or should be the only weapon used), but terrorism is a tactic not an enemy. Korea, at the time, wasn't even called a "war". That doesn't change the fact that it was a war.