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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (1843)	9/14/2001 7:26:38 AM
From: Stephen O	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27666

When the troops go in , the order must be "no prisoners". The scourge of terrorism must be totally eliminated. I expect they will do it country by country, starting with Afghanistan. If Afghanistan objects to NATO troops cleansing the filth, then I would fully support Kabul or another city being razed by nuclear weapons. It will not be pretty.

To: sandintoes who wrote (1843)	9/14/2001 12:37:03 PM
From: Teresa Lo	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 27666

I think from reading the literature, it is easy to imagine that we will never see it their way and they will never see it our way, and there is no room for compromise so far as I can tell from the wording of the documents. This means the positions of both sides are completely entrenched with opposing ideology, dogma, cultures, races, religion, even color. There is virtually no common ground, which is not very good for a long-term peaceful outcome/resolution. So what is the world to do? If indeed a case is made against bin Laden, the "best case scenario" might be an unsavory, long-term occupation that will cost more lives than we can imagine. Check out this map: askasia.org Afghanistan borders Iran, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikastan - all countries that will potentially support the Taliban position. The only neighboring country that will not support them is China, but in that part of China most of the inhabitants are non-Chinese. It will not be so easy as a surgical strike and containment a la Iraq. Can't go in on the ground because of the large potential loss of life for the troops. Looks like we will need the help from the Russians and Chinese too, since we will need secure airspace. What a mess. Add oil and the strategic location, and it's a military black hole. As bizarre as this statement might seem, we might seriously consider and be better off to turn our backs on them now, seal off our borders and get on with the business of living. Before the thread freaks out, first let me say that while it may be the right/honorable thing to do to avenge the deaths of 5,000 innocent people - and this has been going on in the region for at least a thousand years - if it costs another 50,000 American/Free World lives, and untold millions of innocent inhabitants of the region to exact it, would it be right to ask our fathers, brothers and neighbors to die for this mission? I think if we sit down and do the calculations, we answer might be "no". You might ask, what did they die for? Nothing? That is not true either. The dead will have been martyred in the biggest wake up call of all time for at least 300 million of their countrymen. We can and will rebuild a stronger nation, a stronger Block North America to honor them, to show that we will never forget their sacrifice. T.