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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (143358)	9/12/2001 12:41:09 PM
From: deibutfeif	Respond to of 186894

re:And if it takes a month to come up with strategy, and a month of apparent inaction, it is fine with me. A dish served cold is fine, as long as it has many courses.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (143358)	9/12/2001 2:21:59 PM
From: fingolfen	Respond to of 186894

In my post to you I mentioned immigration. None of the would be and actual immigrants have any rights under the constitution, not until 5 years into their stay in the US when they can become citizens. There is nothing in the constitution about immigration, which means Congress is free to pass any laws, and they can come up with list of countries from where we should indefinitely suspend immigration. How does it abridge constitutional rights of anyone if the US suspends immigration from say Afganistan or Syria, and refuses to issue visa to any person born in those countries? I can see the logic behind that, but also consider the U.S. stance during the cold war. We accepted defectors from communist countries with open arms (and still do from Cuba!). What about legitimate refugees from these countries? I'm not saying that close tabs should not be kept on legal immigrants (that's what the whole Visa process is about and could be made more rigorous), but to completely bar immigration is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Ten years ago we would have said the same thing about Iran, but because of individuals who did not buy into the propaganda of hate, Iran has now started to moderate (though a bastion of the old guard remains). This is the reason why the one person whose opinion I found refreshing was Newt Gingrigh, who said yesterday that the US should formally declare war on those responsible, which would make everyone related to the bombing a valid target. I have often disagreed with Newt, but I agree with him on this one. I do, however, believe that several other nations should follow suit, with the same degree of formality. NATO by treaty, Russia and China in the interests of humanity. BTW, I don't advocate carpet bombing starting immediately. I think we need to have a long term strategy first before any action is undertaken. And if it takes a month to come up with strategy, and a month of apparent inaction, it is fine with me. I agree here as well. I believe that our response should be carefully calculated, and when that response is executed, it should be executed without reservation or hesitation. But domesticly, I think we should have the same surveillance of the radical muslim groups that we had in the middle of Cold war of representatives of the governments of Communist countries, the same level of espionage. With that, I hope they started already. It was my impression that this was already the case, but if it isn't that is the obvious first step. The quick response by the FBI shows that the authorities at least know who and where these people are. I do, however, hope the line between a "radical muslim" doesn't blur to include anyone of the Islamic faith or Arabian descent / race. I work at a large international company. I know some Egyptians and even one naturalized Palestinian... they found the events as repugnant as any other American... I only hope America is wise enough to see the line where it truly exists...