Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (23526)	1/8/2004 7:15:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 793622

No, I don't grant that point. If we had taken the hit from a lone demolition expert who had gone crazy and managed to bring down a skyscraper, it would have been different, just as the Oklahoma City bombing was different. It affected us, it was a hit on home turf, but it didn't change everything. When I posted to moenmac yesterday, I mentioned that I had noticed how everyone says "it changed everything" but I had recently realized that people mean different things when they say that. Perhaps that's the salient difference we're searching for... No, I think what changed everything was the hit on home soil. I remember in the first few days all the references to Pearl Harbor and how we hadn't had wars on our soil. I guess we can't "violently agree" on that one. <g> Few people have recommended that we concentrate purely on defense because the United State of America cannot operate in a defensive crouch. We're in a defensive crouch now. Same side effects whether we do defense solely or in combination with war in the ME. As for effectiveness, well, it will be a long time if ever before we find out if the path we're taking is effective. The potential effectiveness of paths not taken is unknowable and irrelevant.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next