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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirRealist who wrote (369)	9/19/2001 8:37:30 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

>>isolating for 2 years. TWO YEARS?<< Considering the lack of success by ANYBODY over decades, not years, I think 2 years would be a cause for celebration. Put an end to one of the mainstays of terrorism in two years? You bet I'd go for that. >>'dead or alive' statements by Bush... the 'head on a platter' comments by Powell<< I think these kinds of inflamatory comments, while perhaps satisfying to those who have been hurt, are not very constructive, and not helpful in solving the problem quickly. More specifically, Bush made a statement that he wanted the Taliban to deliver the terrorists now, and would not negotiate the issue. Anyone who has dealt with people in this area and who has any understanding of the culture knows that is the wrong thing to say. People in this part of the world like to haggle. OK, this is more serious, so when they say they'd like to negotiate, we should say we are very interested in discussing feasible and practical ways that would help them deliver the terrorists promptly. You don't EVER say you're not interested in talking. That's arrogant and insulting. If you don't know the rules for getting something done in this area, you should rely on those who do! >>do you see any other targets you think we'll pursue with the same resolve?<< Terrorism is not limited to Afghanistan. There are organizations throughout the world, and unfortunately in the U.S. as well. Destroying their ability to communicate easily, and destroying the ability to transfer money easily would help, as would an intelligence system better able to identify who and where they are. >>an electronic way to block or scramble electronics to stop wireless<< There are ways to scramble messages to avoid being monitored, and there may be limited effectiveness in jamming transmissions by old fashioned AM short wave, single side band (the sort of stuff amateur radio enthusiasts used to do). Satellite transmissions can be limited to those with accounts allowing satellite use. The question is how to prevent the equipment from falling into the hands of terrorists. Let's hope they don't have a Globalstar phone. >>CARE-type drops of food & medicine to areas of Afghanistan where Al Qaida is scarce<< Definitely possible, and very likely will be used, particularly at night, with the help of night vision devices. As for Iraq, there really is no effective blocade. The Iraqis are limited in their oil exports, which limit the foreign exchange they have for buying stuff. Since the military uses most of the foreign exchange for its own benefit, the rest of the population is pretty much denied food and medicine and other essentials. A total embargo, except for humanitarian needs, is more possible in a land locked country like Afghanistan, where the only access is by air or by poor quality roads. Art