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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (388109)	6/3/2008 12:20:39 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574487

You are exactly right and chris proves the point in answer to my earlier question regarding questionable liberal support of the move into afganistan. Now they yap about the sanctity of pakistan and thus nothing can be done in south wahiristan. So for chris, we cant go after al quaeda if it means attacking the taliban then, or now if it means entering into pakistan in some manner. Chris once told me that he didnt care much about 9/11 because it didnt affect him personally. He said he worried more about traffic fatalitites. As an aside, john fowler is not in that group. His fault is that he might not recognize such folks are out there---sort of iodes or michael savages of the right.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (388109)	6/3/2008 1:38:40 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574487

"Chris, there is no doubt that Iraq was a blunder, but you think kicking out the Taliban was an "overreaction"?" Again, you throw up a straw man that I didn't say. The Taliban were given a choice, give up Osama and his men or face the consequences. They didn't give them up and deserved what they got. I've never seen Afghanistan as an over-reaction. It's the justified reaction that was perfectly appropriate. The entire world backed Afghanistan, and so did I. But Iraq? How the HELL did THAT follow? And we're STILL THERE!