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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (69420)	5/30/2008 5:01:46 PM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 542138

It's the same old game - if AQ is on the ascendancy we have to redouble our efforts everywhere to combat them. If we are "winning" and reducing the threat, we have to redouble our efforts so we don't give up our hard-earned gains and let them regroup. It's a shell game with only one possible outcome. The policy response never changes, nor can it in that paradigm.

To: Cogito who wrote (69420)	5/30/2008 5:51:43 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542138

That is non sense. Al Qaeda in Iraq has had the tide turn against it because of their brutality against fellow Muslims. Al Qaeda has lost the PR war because of the way the fought the war. Abu Graib was only able to be used for Al Qaeda and democrats against our nation's effort in Iraq because the media and the democrats desire to get Bush. Gitmo, Abu Graib, geez the terrorists expect to be tortured to death if caught just like they do to our soldiers when they catch them. Islamofascists will be around for some time. An organization supported by a nation able to coordinate large scale spectacular attacks (9-11) or bigger is what has been destroyed. A handful of guys planning can do allot of damage, what do you suggest we do? Al Qaeda made Iraq their stand against us, they have lost for now. Perhaps Iraq falls apart when we leave, who knows.