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.

Pastimes : Books, Movies, Food, Wine, and Whatever -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Constant Reader who wrote (2413)	9/16/2001 5:11:48 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 51713

Message 16359652 I think it's unrealistic, too. Swift retribution is necessary for a number of reasons. I believe Steven is talking long term strategy, and suspect that he didn't intend that the scenario he outlines in several of his posts exclude an immediate violent response. Let's ask him. What about something like this, which would meet the need for an immediate and highly visible and substantial response while the detective work Steven advocates gets going. This would be a variant of NATO's Belgrade strategy, with one addition. The object would be, first of all, to destroy, from the air, any military capabilities the Taliban possess. Airports, fields, fuel tanks, etc., making the country not workable. (The Pakistanis have apparently agreed to cut the fuel shipments already.) This would be punctuated by demands that bin Laden be turned over. The additional step would be essentially to take over the Northern Alliance that is clinging to power in northern Afghanistan and convert it into a force capable of retaking substantial territory from the weakened Taliban, concentrating on the cave districts where bin Laden is hanging out with his hundred or so best friends. This would require ground forces. One hopes some other countries would contribute troops. It would be forming a cordon around bin L's territory and hold it until he could be starved or smoked out. Or something. This could be an immediate response, and Steven's scenario could continue in the background. It also might help to save the women of Afghanistan from "the cult of ignorant psychotics who took over in 1997," to borrow from the link Rambi posted. EDIT: Iraq might be tempted to intervene. Maybe a good thing, from our standpoint. We could retaliate. Just thoughts.

To: Constant Reader who wrote (2413)	9/16/2001 5:36:48 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 51713

As I said, I totally didn't agree with that. That seemed really ill advised. Up till now, the national rhetoric hasn't been too bad, but I'm concerned about a scale-up and general calling up of reserves (other than showing that more direct efforts will not be tolerated). I don't think we have to crow about our strength. We've demonstrated our military superiority for years. It is our strategy that concerns me. I think we have technologies that will amaze conventional attackers. These, however, aren't conventional attackers.