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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (7729)	9/12/2001 10:04:06 AM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 23153

I don't know whether he means it or not, but the statement by Putin seemed to offer support and cooperation in stopping terrorists. Seems like a worthy project for the KGB.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (7729)	9/12/2001 10:53:11 AM
From: que seria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Amen to that, KB. From Frank Church on our "leaders" in the House and Senate have neutralized the ability of our covert agencies to strike back, even to gather information. It's time for the president to boldly reassert to the American people that he (through the CIA, etc.) must have the tools to covertly do what is needed, not shackled by the noble fantasy that US legal norms can be applied to terrorists in remote locations. It is beyond ludicrous to see cruise missiles and bombs as justified, but not targeted assasinations. The issue is always the morality of the deed. Narrower targeting is more moral than accepting "collateral" damage from cruise missiles because we are irrationally squeamish about lower-tech assasination. Typical liberal mush-headedness, confusing form with substance. I am opposed to the predictable increase in casualties to US soldiers that would be involved in an effort to extract bin Laden and others alive from their holes in order to try them. But I think CpsOmis has a valid point, if it is limited to our need to recognize legitimate grievances of dispossessed persons such as Palestinians. It is possible to recognize legitimate grievances and criticize US foreign policy while still being resolute and ruthless toward those who imagine their grievances justify slaughter of the innocent. Our gov't has been inserting itself ever since WWII into other nations' affairs, typically (I would say) on the side closest to "right." However, in doing so we have unavoidably overriden the complexity of moral/ethical issues in those places and helped eliminate whatever impetus the locals would otherwise have had to balance and compromise conflicting or minority concerns. The issue is not the well-documented barbarity of many of the systems and gov'ts we have intervened against since WWII, but whether in the long run the people of those nations would have done better on their own. Edit: I wouldn't shirk from the concept of "revenge," CpsOmis. The actor must be in the right, and the target deserving, but if so, vengeance or retribution is more than good. It is the foundation of criminal law.