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: stockman_scott who wrote (7766)	9/12/2001 7:13:48 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Scott, any nation that is attacked has the right to self-defense under Chapter 7, Article 51 of the UN Charter, as it sees fit until the Security Council acts. In this case, the UNSC won't act (i.e. and we will be fully justified in wiping out whoever we believe responsible for the crime. The people who died during the attacks certainly were not responsible for the supposed "crimes" that the terrorists were attacking.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (7766)	9/12/2001 7:59:33 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

stockman_scott, Re: <<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?>> Yes, but with full respect for that country's sovereign powers as a nation. If we could not accomplish our goal with their cooperation, then we should consider whether they are outlaw nations that support and condone acts of violence toward our country and its citizens. In that event I think we can make a valid argument that they are, in large part, an integral part of the terrorism and we should consider them to be responsible for the acts of the terrorists and that such acts constitute acts of war. That step would free us from having to deal with them and would allow us to act despite them. Maybe we need another classification of war: a declaration of limited war. All that I am saying is that we should recognize the rule of law, should not let extreme situations render us extremists and should always recognize that the unrestrained exercise of power is usually neither wise nor effective in the long run. More importantly, we should be sure that any action we take would be generally consistent with the teachings of the different religions of the world. Ed