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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7947)	9/15/2001 6:22:49 PM
From: Razorbak	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Ray, Re: Middle East Travel and Direct Military Action Perhaps the closest I ever came to that was an inadvertent turn (ala Sherman McCoy in "Bonfire of the Vanities") when I ended up in a completely unfamiliar (to me) neighborhood on the near West Side of Chicago. My fear was palpable as watched with increasing trepidation the hatred in the eyes of the men on those street corners as I impatiently waited for my stoplight to turn. As close to panicking as I've ever gotten, ready to race away. Hey, first introduction to a 3rd world country and the understandable desire to carry firearms for protection! <g> Not bad. (Pretty good start, actually.) You game to try Egypt? Nice pyramids and a Sphynx-cter muscle workout to boot. Perhaps Pakistan? K-2 here we come, but you gotta get past Islamabad first. I hear Haiti's pretty close. <g> As far as taking direct action against the state of Afghanistan, Sudan or any of the other proposed targets for our anger and lashing out, all I can say is that it will be a feel good moment for the country when the TV news shows us blowing something up. No doubt about it. It worked swell during the Gulf War. The only problem that we are left with, is that our wanton destruction of Kabul, Khartoum or any other asset we'd like to blow up, is that it will only serve to be the greatest recruitment tool the enemy could ever have. The SS weren't very successful recruiting many more fanatics when Berlin was burning and Hitler was lying dead in his bunker. Similarly, the Japanese warlords weren't able to recruit many more fanatics after the surrender on the USS Missouri. Motivation aplenty, but not much follow-through, eh? Just a hunch, ya know, but I kinda think that decisive victory tends to squelch the opposition pretty effectively, no? Unless we want the U.S. to be on a permanent war footing (and I, for one, do not), the course of action that the U.S. must engage in is a measured and considered response and a willingness to take the necessary security measures that we must in order to protect our vital interests on our home turf. Dood, if you don't adopt a permanent war footing against terrorism, it will slowly eat you alive. A measured and considered response is doomed to failure. This isn't punishment of a criminal action; this is war. War means the use of disproportionate force. That's what it took during the war against the pirates in the 1800's. Something you might want to look up during your historical readings is the sheer number of U.S. military deployments in the history of this nation that involved actions against pirates in the first half of the 19th century. Focus on the period between 1800 and 1850, and you'll be amazed. Seen many pirates off the Barbary Coast lately? ;-) Best regards, Razor