SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (383800)5/12/2008 12:04:52 PM
From: michael97123  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572920
 
after 9/11 was the attack on the taliban/afganistan the correct thing to do? Some on the left say no and blame the US for aggression there as well as in iraq.



To: Alighieri who wrote (383800)5/12/2008 12:14:33 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572920
 
This is me...I don't believe a direct attack does not merit a response..

Do you believe that a direct attack on an ally (e.g., Israel) would constitute an Act of War against the US? That is, does the term "ally" mean anything, or would we stand idly by and watch an allied nation be slaughtered? (Not speaking of just Israel, but of any ally)?



To: Alighieri who wrote (383800)5/12/2008 2:45:36 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572920
 
I feel we were totally justified going after AQ in Afghanistan and deposing the Taliban that sheltered them, but Iraq did not attack us, even indirectly.

We were the aggressor invaders in Iraq, the world saw this, and Bush lost the support of the world.

Bush hijacked and redirected the anger and fear from 9/11 to attack Iraq, for reasons of his own. Dave is still a sucker. Most Americans have wised up.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News