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: ManyMoose who wrote (90945)	10/21/2008 12:00:53 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541078

What would you say that Bush did? It is fundamentally impossible to answer your question because it will all depend on the circumstances of the attack. But, in general, my guess is that Obama would say the "right" things to bring the country together. He will also go after the people who actually did the deed, whatever it was and whoever it was. He will also welcome and encourage international cooperation to bring whoever does this "thing" that you imagine will happen to justice. He will not attack a country that had no part in "it." Pray God Bush's efforts have been sufficient to deny the terrorists nuclear capability. If not, then the test will be nuclear. All bets are off if that happens. I don't know many people who think that Bush has done very much "to deny the terrorists nuclear capability." He has helped to destabilize Pakistan, which is the most obvious source of that capability, while freezing relations with Iran even after Iran was helpful in his first (and justified attacks on the Taliban. He not only allowed the Taliban to escape, he allowed them to regroup and get stronger by not pressing his advantage back in '02, and focusing on Iraq. A very old saying runs something like, "If you attack an enemy, don't just wound him, kill him so he can't come back for revenge." We wounded them, let them lick and heal those wounds, overstretched our own armed forces, isolated ourselves in the world, and now you somehow want to praise Bush? to suggest that his "efforts" have been effective? US Airport security will prevent an attack launched from US soil, but if the terrorists try another plane incident launched like those on 9/11 launched from another country, Cuba for example, Obama will have nowhere to go that Bush hasn't been already. I doubt he will negotiate with the terrorists, but what else is there? Attack Pakistan? No plane from cuba's airspace will attack this country. I am willing give you steep odds on it. You name the odds, the time period, and the amount.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (90945)	10/21/2008 5:32:34 AM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541078

>>I had five reactions to my legitimate question, none of which came close to giving me an answer. << MM - The problem is only that you think it's a legitimate question when it isn't, really, as I explained in my previous post. This is similar to the way you perceive people responding to your posts with reasoned posts of their own as being "attacks". I do acknowledge that someone insulted you on the thread today, but most of us are just trying to respond the the arguments you are making. >>Obama's followers are so mesmerized they accept any answer he gives them. It's given in a soothing prophetic voice, and even I find myself being taken in from time to time.<< Sure. We couldn't possibly have rational reasons to support Obama, so we must be mesmerized. - Allen PS: FYI, the successes we've had in stopping terrorist attacks have been due to police work and Intelligence. This has happened here, in England, and Spain. It really is a law enforcement issue. Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, or rather in Pakistan just across the border, Osama bin Laden remains free. Military action didn't capture him. Meanwhile, the people who planned and perpetrated the first WTC bombing are all in prison.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (90945)	10/21/2008 8:18:44 AM
From: biotech_bull	Respond to of 541078

I had five reactions to my legitimate question, none of which came close to giving me an answer. MM, The reason may well be that folks don't take surreal litmus tests seriously as a tool to help choose between two candidates. BB

To: ManyMoose who wrote (90945)	10/21/2008 10:01:07 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541078

Biden says Obama will be tested... But I continue to do my own thinking. Pray God Bush's efforts have been sufficient to deny the terrorists nuclear capability. If not, then the test will be nuclear. You seem to be assuming that any test would be a terrorist attack on the homeland. I agree that there will be some testing, but there are lots of other vehicles for that--trade disputes, attacks on some third party, disrupting supply lines or shipping routes, expelling the UN or missionaries or businesses, ethnic cleansing, etc.