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: cnyndwllr who wrote (7764)	9/12/2001 6:33:19 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

<<It is the acts of foreign governments that constitute acts of war.>> What if foreign governments (in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or Pakistan) were backing & / or supporting the terrorist cells? Wouldn't we be justified to try to wipe out the cell in a careful and targeted way? Yet, we should also send a decisive message to those behind the terrorists. I tend to agree with the statements I have read from Kissinger and Powell on how they view an appropriate response. Obviously, we must carefully coordinate with allies and major Gulf states whenever possible. Yet, we may have to use select mercenary activities when terrorist leaders have been clearly identified. IMHO, we must eliminate the leaders of these cells. This will take time and a lot of support from the American people and from Congress. Lets hope folks have the stomach to do what may need to be done. Best Regards, Scott

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (7764)	9/12/2001 6:53:33 PM
From: chowder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 23153

Ed, I appreciate your thoughts and comments. >> When I hear people talk about how we should just go in and "win," << Like you, I'm not of the opinion that we should just go in there and win. I'm of the opinion that if we get to the point where we must deploy troops and fight, then we should make the commitment to go all out and win. Anything less is disrespectful to those who lost their lives doing what we sent them there to do. But let's look at the bigger picture as you presented. Were the Kamikaze pilots of Japan martyrs? Did we win and change the ideas of Imperial Japan in spite of this? Were the SS of the Third Reich martyrs? Did we win and change the ideas of Nazi Germany? How did we do that? We eliminated the leaders at the top! We made a commitment to win, to do whatever was necessary to see that neither country was a threat to us again. It was then that we were able to change the ideas, to help the Japanese and German people. It was after eliminating their leaders that we went in and helped rebuild their countries, let them live their lives and helped them to support the type of government they wished to have. In essence, we made allies out of enemies but only after taking out the people at the top. Throughout history this process has been repeated over and over again. If you're going to make the choice to fight, you fight to win. If someone slaps you, you punch them back. If someone punches you, you pummel them to the ground. When they see that you aren't going to be intimidated and you're willing to do what is necessary to win, it is then that you'll open their mind to new ideas in how to get along. As a simple street kid who used to live in a project, this form of communication and getting along has survived for years. Your best friends were always the ones who tried to intimidate you and you wouldn't let them. After a few serious battles it became clear it was better to be friends than to be enemies. Crime? War? Simply semantics from my point of view. You entered my neighborhood and took some lives. As with Germany and Japan, unconditional surrender should be the only course of action and part of that surrender should be taking out the leadership. Then we can sit down and discuss ideas. dabum

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (7764)	9/12/2001 7:26:07 PM
From: Second_Titan	Respond to of 23153

Maybe I am naive, but I hope that the experiences of Vietnam have biased yours and Dabums expectations and that you are wrong to base your expectations of our countries response to this incident to our Vietnam debacle. As a veteran I can only imagine my feelings if my efforts and sacrifice were betrayed by the US Government and also rejected and unappreciated by the US public. This is not the 1960's and I will be surprised if US citizens are willing to have our citizens massacred with impunity any longer. From the early 80's they have been killing our military personnel in bombings and now civilians including women and probably children. When 300 soldiers are killed in a bomb explosion in Lebanon, people can brush it off and rationalize that they were soldiers or that it happened far away. When thousands of civilians are massacred and injured this will not be easy to forget. When thousnads of people will be involved with responding to the incident they will not forget. In the 1960's I dont think people were afraid of terrorists ability to deliver nuclear or biological weapons. We cannot reconcile our differences with these fascists who hide behind religion to impose their will on others. After Israel, do you think they will be satisfied? Remember Sudentland? This has allot less to do with Israel than it does with power. With control over Iraq, Iran or Saudia Arabia the fundamentalists would have the power to bring our world to its knees. In short one crucial difference should be unwavering public support for a long term solution. Lets see who will be going to protest practice bombing in Puerto Rico now.