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: Lane3 who wrote (84758)	9/16/2008 7:44:13 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541580

I don't think fighting them "there" can be said to be a deliberate strategy in Iraq. Although Cheney worked hard to make a Saddam / 9/11 connection, the case was always pretty weak, and that's being charitable. The there vs. here line didn't show up till the insurgency went out of control.

To: Lane3 who wrote (84758)	9/16/2008 9:53:16 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541580

>>Fighting them "there" so that we don't have to fight them "here" was a deliberate strategy. I think there's a lot to be said for that notion. Whether invading Iraq was the best way to implement that notion is a matter separate matter from the making of the distinction.<< Karen - I disagree about the whole concept of "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." There is nothing about our having a hundred and fifty thousand troops fighting overseas that could prevent another twenty men from attacking us on our soil again. The notion of a deterrent factor is an illusion. And though I know you love to discuss every point in an argument separately, for the sake of logical clarity, things in the real world are messier than that. Since I disagree with the policy, I find it especially painful to see the FTTSWDHTFTH idea applied in a place where "they" never were in the first place. - Allen