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: Alighieri who wrote (375644)	4/1/2008 10:45:40 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575984

What of the ones who are not? How much "collateral damage" is acceptable? Had the Clinton administration not gotten cold feet about collateral damage (the potential for which was minimal), bin Laden would have been killed in the late 90s and 9/11 probably would never have happened. You cannot let the prospect of nominal collateral damage limit your ability to kill enemies. Our military has done an exceptional job -- the best in history since air wars began -- in the war on terror in avoiding collateral damage. I'm sure they would if they found an opportunity to attack bin Laden, as well. However, a reasonable amount of collateral damage is totally acceptable and a necessary consequence of war.