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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sedohr Nod who wrote (755134)	11/28/2006 12:41:07 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Don: My point is that this is not a front like in a traditional war. The battle in Iraq in no way forces the muslim extremists to engage us there. They could disappear in teh dark of night and attempt to engage us (or avoid engaging us) in a dozen other locales. In fact, Somalia seems to be one such site, and others abound. I have real trouble with the idea that "we fight them there so we don't fight them here" or "we fight them there so they don't follow us home". Either argument implies that Iraq forces the enemy into engagement, whereas the truth is that they could choose to fight us there...or they could choose to load a freighter landing in Seattle with some deadly item..or they could choose to do a dozen other very bad deeds.....and none of them, none of them, are contingent on fighting us in Iraq. If we choose to say that we battle in Iraq because winning there is important and establishing a democracy in that part of the world is important, and the rule of law must prevail....I can accept those arguments. But don't say we fight there so the terrorists don't follow us home. I do not underplay or minimize the comments of anyone. I just don't think the battle in Iraq should be phrased as a roadblock against our ememies having the capacity to hit us at the same time, or in differernt ways than in Iraq.