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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jamok99 who wrote (54937)	9/13/2001 12:27:32 AM
From: dhellman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Redefining the Response stratfor.com Thanks combjelly for the link "The U.S. government will need to use a new approach, one that involves redefining the entity it holds responsible, as it plans a response to yesterday's attacks. The United States cannot go to war with every Islamic country that harbors or aids the attackers. It is simply not feasible militarily. The United States can go to war against the attackers themselves, making it clear that neither geographical barriers nor unproven guilt will protect them. It is not a perfect model, but it is a model that can work: Define the attackers as an entity, seek them out by any means and destroy them. This challenge will require a level of trust in the intelligence community that has been severely shaken by this and other events. It requires that they be given powers that they had prior to the 1970s but which have since been taken away from them. You cannot wage a war of permissions. Therefore, this is where the intelligence failures and lack of trust come home to haunt the United States. The United States needs a superb covert operations capability -- of unquestioned skill and moral virtue -- to wage this war. Whether the United States has such a capability is what will have to be decided. But the other choices are between wild overcommitment and impotence."

To: jamok99 who wrote (54937)	9/13/2001 3:26:44 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Jamok if bin laden is involved then it becomes irrelevant if afganistan government knew about the plot or not. The fact would be that they were harboring a known threat to US and therefore guilty - rules of war Regards -Albert

To: jamok99 who wrote (54937)	9/13/2001 10:49:09 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Jamok, I hadn't read this when I posted that message, but there was this article in the paper yesterday. Taliban Plead for Mercy to the Miserable in a Land of Nothing nytimes.com Whatever Afghanistan's current cataclysm, its next one seems to require little time to overtake it. Wars fought by sundry protagonists have gone on now for 22 consecutive years, a remorseless drought for 4. Since 1996, most of the nation has been ruled by Taliban mullahs whose vision of the world's purest Islamic state has at least as much to do with controlling social behavior as vouchsafing social welfare. The local advocates for rounding up all the muslims would deny any US complicity in those 22 years of war, of course. That was different. Whatever else there is to say about this entreaty, one part that is indisputably true is that this land-locked, ruggedly beautiful nation is in absolute misery. Here in Kabul, the capital, roaming clusters of widows beg in the streets, their palms seemingly frozen in a supplicant pose. Withered men pull overloaded carts, their labor less costly than the price of a donkey. Children play in vast ruins, their limbs sometimes wrenched away by remnant land mines. The national life expectancy, according to the central statistics office, has fallen to 42 for males and 40 for females. The prolonged drought has sent nearly a million Afghans — about 5 percent of the population — on a desperate flight from hunger. Some have gone to other Afghan cities, others across the border. More than one million are "at risk of starvation," according to the United Nations. Famine is the catastrophe Afghans are used to hearing about. Few yet know of the threat of an American reprisal. The Taliban long ago banned television, and the lack of electricity keeps most people from listening to radio. The nation's 100 or so foreign aid workers suffer no such telecommunications handicaps, however, and today many of them began to flee their adopted home, fearing either the havoc of American bombs or the wrath of subsequent Afghan outrage. The US would be doing Afghanistan a great favor by invading, at the very least civilians would get to eat. Getting rid of the Taliban would be a big favor to them too. There's even the chance that we could actually give them a government, something that most of the people there would dearly love, and something the US funded proxy war there utterly failed to do. Dumping a lot of bombs on Afghanistan isn't going to solve anything. It'd probably cheer up some local posters, though. How those local posters can consider themselves on higher moral ground than the Palestinians cheering for the WTC coming down is a conundrum, but I'm sure they do.