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: eCo who wrote (55160)	9/14/2001 11:33:30 AM
From: jjayxxxx	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

RE: <The few that we do get will become martyrs which can only serve to enhance the factions' recruiting efforts.> I agree. That is a scary thought. <This is not mere speculation. Since Sharon has stepped up Israeli efforts to wipe out Palestinian terrorists, has Israel become safer?> You say this rhetorically, but I think there is no real way to know. Israel might have actually gotten safer, yes. Would you suggest Israel let down its guard and, using your visual example, put up blinking neon signs saying "Airport Express Line -- 9 Weapons or Less". Obviously there is no easy solution. I think we need to go after known terrorists, because it is better than not going after them. In other words, if we don't go after them (in any major way) and merely tighten security a bit, aren't we just waiting for the next massacre to happen? However, I also hope that we pursue some sort of simultaneous alternative solution (e.g. Marshall Plan), maybe a major economic package for countries that change their ways and actively denounce terrorism or anti-westernism. Won't do anything to counter the anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-anything-but-Muslim fanaticism, but it might be better than not. I don't know (obviously!) but something besides just ridding them, since ridding them 1) won't work to perfect extinction, and 2) it has the all-too-real potential of creating a new generation of terrorists. JJ

To: eCo who wrote (55160)	9/14/2001 12:08:21 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 275872

Hi _eco_; Re: "Since Sharon has stepped up Israeli efforts to wipe out Palestinian terrorists, has Israel become safer?" We are not Israel. Israel is so small that of course her enemies can convince themselves that "this time, we're going to get them!" So they keep coming. But we're bigger and so there are some things we can do. Putting down the fundamentalist government in Afghanistan will prove that God isn't on their side, for instance. That will take a lot of wind out of the sails of the clergy associated with that movement. And rebuilding the country afterwards will eventually reduce the anger. If we had taken out Saddam a decade ago, none of this would have happened, I believe. I'm becoming convinced that this operation will be first directed at Iraq (or perhaps simultaneously with Afghanistan). The Israelis are saying that he was responsible, and it makes a lot of sense. Basically, those are the two regimes that the world can best get along without. I know that the propaganda is that the fundamentalists will fight on forever, but the fact of human nature is that people are only inclined to give their lives up to causes that have not yet proved to be hopeless. Iraq should be relatively easy to convert into a more or less (for the Middle East anyway) liberal democracy. Afghanistan will be harder, but I would be willing to bet that after 20 years of war, everybody who is really willing to die for his country / party / religion / whatever, is already dead there. Especially when faced with the usual overwhelming force. Humans do not like to be on the losing side. The fundamentalist Moslems are as human as everybody else. They are not the first "excitable boys" our military has been sent to deal with. In fact, in the 20th century, most of our opponents have been that way. The Germans were the master race. The Japanese fought for a God on Earth. And then were the mindless Communists in several varieties and the soldiers fighting for the "Mother of all Battles" guy. Try to look at it from the other side. They're petrified. We're the cowboys who raise their kids to shoot game at 6 (read any Texas small town newspaper for the kiddie first deer kill announcements), play hand-eye coordination combat shootem ups at the video arcade from 4 to 18, and then become 6'6" 220 lb football players. Our guys are trained for viciousness in ghettoes, or spend their youth practicing living off the land in the Boy Scouts. We don't have to teach them to drive and repair heavy armored vehicles, their dads already did that with the family SUV! In the present case, we have volunteer armies, and we give them psychological tests to find out who will be the most effective (killers) on the front line. Then we provide them with the most efficient weapons the most technologically advanced country in the world can design and almost unlimited ammunition from the world's most efficient supply lines. What do you think it's like waiting for the Americans at night, knowing that they all have night vision equipment and you don't? Knowing that their auto ranging anti artillery equipment will allow you to only fire one round per artillery piece. Oh, and then there's air support. You won't have any. Every time we go up against these nuthatch countries with delusions of military grandeur the estimation is that these guys will never surrender. The same thing was said before Japan surrendered, and the Nazis never gave any hint that they were going to docilely let us occupy them for years. The Iraqis surrendered in incredible numbers. No one wants to be a soldier killed in a losing cause. The secret is that you must make a decisive military victory in order to thoroughly discredit the old regime. Germany in WW1 was not sufficiently demoralized at the time of the Armistice. If they had been chased fighting into Berlin they would have understood their weakness and GFUTI. It's sad to say, but we need to kill so many soldiers that the remainder simply refuse to fight. At that time, the war will be over, and the survivors will recognize their pecking order in the world power situation and GFUTI. I don't look forward to this. It's possible that it could take 2 or 3 years to grind enough of them through the killing fields to reach the point where they figure it out. -- Carl P.S. Winning wars decisively enough to convince the losers that they lost is important. The British had repeatedly defeated the Zulu from defensive positions, but they kept coming back for more. The British commander realized that they would continue to fight until they were defeated in open field - the Zulu were telling themselves that the British cowards for taking cover. So he marched his troops out into the field, formed up in squares, and defeated them that way. The Zulu never gave the British trouble again. The humane idea is to arrange things so that in the process of getting the other guy to fully and completely cry "uncle!", try to minimize the bloodshed.