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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (52170)	9/14/2001 11:19:07 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 70976

No Middle Ground New York Times, By R. W. APPLE Jr. WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — Sketching in the outline of an aggressive new American foreign policy, the Bush administration today gave the nations of the world a stark choice: stand with us against terrorism, deny safe havens to terrorists or face the certain prospect of death and destruction. The marble halls of Washington resounded with talk of war. Senior officials cast aside the niceties of diplomatic language and the military restraint that the United States had manifested in dealing with past terrorist attacks, promising that the response to Tuesday's suicide missions in New York and near Washington would be "a campaign, not a single action," that might last a year or more. Such a campaign could involve American forces in protracted fighting against a number of Asian and African countries, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and even Pakistan, which occupies a vital strategic position south of Afghanistan, where the Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is believed to be based. Other top officers at the battered Pentagon made it clear that "ending states who sponsor terrorism" meant wiping out governments that refused to cooperate. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell used language similar to the bellicose phrases he employed in 1991, when he said of Saddam Hussein's army in Kuwait, "First we're going to cut it off, and then we're going to kill it." Today, Secretary Powell said that once the Bush administration had finished assembling and showing the world evidence against the bin Laden network, "we will go after that group, that network, and those who have harbored, supported and aided that network, to rip the network up." "When we're through with that network," he continued, "we will continue with a global assault against terrorism in general." By equating acts of terrorism and even the harboring of terrorists with acts of war, the administration is going well beyond traditional international practice. In this new kind war, it is saying, there are no neutral states and no clear geographical confines. You must choose sides. Us or them. You are either with us or against us. What the administration appears to have in mind, in fact, is assembling the broadest possible worldwide coalition, as President George Bush did for the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and using it for a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. This coalition would then try to strike in a pre-emptive way. By denying sanctuary to terrorists and eliminating them wherever they are, Washington hopes to regain the initiative, which usually lies with the terrorists, because they move in the shadows and can strike at any time. Washington is ratcheting up the pressure on countries like Pakistan. Its leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has condemned the attacks on the United States. But Secretary Powell has made it clear that words are not enough. He spoke today on the telephone with General Musharraf and read him an "action list" the administration wanted the Pakistani leader to follow. General Musharraf will have to weigh the sympathies of his own militants, who have tended to side with the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, against the wishes of the United States. He now knows that the United States is determined to eliminate sympathizers of the Taliban and their most notorious guest, Mr. bin Laden, if Pakistan does not take the firm actions Washington requires.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (52170)	9/15/2001 9:55:48 AM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Sun, It is also the reason why our only true defense is the cultivation of compassion and the genuine effort to help all humans everywhere Excellent post once again. Too often we as humans take the Path of Least Resistance.....it is much easier to call for a war than to forgive and try to solve the underlying issues that caused the attack in the first place. BTW, ABC News had the wife of one of the survivors on last night and the reporter asked her about using retribution. Her response was that her husband(who was missing) would not have wanted it and neither did she. What good would killing another person do to help with what the people of NYC are going through? It would most likely only add to the suffering of other innocent people down the road. It is unfortunate that too few people can see the obvious through their veil of tears. Regards, Brian