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: combjelly who wrote (697169)	2/4/2013 11:39:42 AM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1585797

>> No, he took advantage of 9/11 and cast the situation as a war. An endless war because there can never be a victory. While your characterization is clearly wrong, I don't really see how it would be relevant. And it certainly isn't factual -- no one who was paying attention would argue that Bush DIDN'T decimate al Qaeda. When an attack is made against our country killing 3,000 of our people, that, without any doubt, starts a war. One which is prosecuted by soldiers, not by FBI agents. It is not a mere crime but an act of war, and it is essential for our nation to respond accordingly. Assume for the moment that Bush had reacted in the mold of the Obama administration's gut reaction, and chosen to prosecute the war instead as a criminal action. Al Qaeda would clearly still be healthy, we might have locked up a few -- but they would likely have been released because they couldn't have been convicted in a court of law (because they know how to work the system). There would have been no waterboarding and THEREFORE BIN LADEN WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN KILLED (see: Panetta on MTP). And we undoubtedly would have experienced additional attacks ON OUR SOIL since 9/11. I'm not quite sure how you rationalize your argument, but it really doesn't hold water.