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: Katelew who wrote (220080)	2/21/2007 5:32:16 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I can't agree with you, Nadine. Democrats have had little or no opportunity to really weigh in on the war on terror. Say what? There was a presdential campaign in 2004, remember? Kerry is on record supporting criminal prosecution of terrorits, isn't that weighing in? He didn't get a chance to implement his policy because he lost the election. Democrats have certainly not been silent, and have 'weighed in' repeatedly. Now they have a chance to actually make policy, but they seem to be fighting shy of doing so, as they don't want to assume any responsibility for the results. Hence the non-binding resolution. The left isn't picky about how terrorist groups are disposed of. They can be assasinated or adjudicated. The distinction is tracking them down thru surveillance, infiltration, covert ops, etc. as opposed to clumsy and costly conventional warfare. Oh no? Then why did Israel collect endless grief over its targeted assasinations? Why is Europe running trials over "special rendition", why does Germany keep trying Al Qaeda guys (and losing the cases), why does the NYT seem eager to expose every anti-terrorist program even if it's legal like the SWIFT program? You are not stating the left's positions accurately.

To: Katelew who wrote (220080)	2/21/2007 6:11:34 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

If you compare terror groups to organized crime, your approach would be akin to blowing up Chicago to catch a few mobsters. What if it's not a few mobsters, but 50,000 mobsters, and they run the entire state of Illinois, and control the government and the police and the judiciary completely? Like I said, things change with scale, and it's very important to accurately assess the size of the problem. Iran sends Hizbullah hundreds of millions of dollars every year. We are talking about armies, not a few mobsters.