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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (26685)	9/12/2001 1:05:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Thus, I am used to ongoing conversation, and at least signal if one is going to take some time to think about it. Oh, so that's why you always announce when you run off to pick up your dry cleaning or something... I wasn't really taking time to think about it. I'm just filtering a lot of info. I have CNBC on TV. They had an insurance guy on. He was asked whether people calling this a war had any effect on insurance payments that normally don't pay in event of war. He said that insurance companies have traditionally paid off for terrorist damage and he expected that to continue. I'm also distracted thinking about whether or not to post anything about this jihad on X. Your layout of the scenario made sense to me. The terrorist network as the enemy/target and the countries as sponsors or not. I'm just wondering about the practical implications. However, there are often camps, training facilities, and cadres to target and destroy. Taking the court-led approach is not prudent. Which suggests that the action would need to be sure all the targets were dead. I think it would be difficult to get a coalition to declare war on the terrorist network. And, of course, there's this administration's disinclination to seek consensus. Karen