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: TimF who wrote (26788)	9/12/2001 8:28:34 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I wanted to post this here: a388.g.akamai.net

To: TimF who wrote (26788)	9/12/2001 8:41:56 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Thank you for posting those links, Tim. Charles Krauthammer articulates very well, imo, what our response should be. And this paragraph points the way, and hopefully Bush making the "no distinction" policy clear will finally give us the wherewithal to attack the base of operations of terrorists. >>Military response against whom? It is absurd to make war on the individuals who send these people. The terrorists cannot exist in a vacuum. They need a territorial base of sovereign protection. For 30 years we have avoided this truth. If bin Laden was behind this, then Afghanistan is our enemy. (BEG ITAL)Any country that harbors and protects him is our enemy. We must carry (BEG ITAL)their war to them. We should seriously consider a congressional declaration of war. That convention seems quaint, unused since World War II. But there are two virtues to declaring war: It announces our seriousness both to our people and to the enemy, and it gives us certain rights as belligerents (of blockade, for example).