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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (77129)	9/22/2001 9:48:54 AM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 116753

September 22, 2001 ABROAD AT HOME 'To Thine Own Self Be True' By ANTHONY LEWIS nytimes.com "I ask you to uphold the values of America," President Bush said to Congress and the nation. That will be a fair test of his policy for dealing with terrorism as the policy unfolds: Does it uphold the values of America? Our government's actions both external and internal should be judged by that standard. Will any military action we take be measured and precise, in keeping with a concern for innocent civilians, or will anger and frustration lead to broader, less discriminating attacks? In attempting to root out terrorists within our borders, will we have a decent respect for privacy and due process of law? Not only humanity and our fealty to law call for attention to those concerns. We have urgent reasons of self-interest to make sure that our struggle against terrorism sticks to American values. Take the external first. The great danger here is that military attacks of too sweeping a character — by the heavy U.S. bombers already sent to the Middle East, for example — would play into the hands of the terrorists and their presumed leader, Osama bin Laden. A noted military scholar, Sir Michael Howard, former Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, made the point compellingly in The Times of London a week ago. Tracing examples of terrorism over the last 130 years, he said one of the terrorists' principal aims has always been "to provoke . . . savage acts of suppression" that win sympathy for their cause. Sir Michael said President Bush must be under heavy pressure "to respond in kind, and reply to terror with terror. . . . But were he to do so, he would only multiply the number of the enemies of the United States throughout the world. . . . The strategy of provocation would have won, and Mr. Bush would be playing out the script written for him by the terrorists themselves." The New York Times reported the other day, in an important story by Patrick E. Tyler and Elaine Sciolino, that the Bush administration was divided on how sweeping the military response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington should be. Secretary of State Colin Powell was for a measured response, probably targeting Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan. A faction led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz wanted to attack Iraq as well. An attack on Iraq would be intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power. (Right-wing voices on television have been urging just that, blaming President Bill Clinton for the fact that Saddam is still there. But of course it was the first President Bush who failed to remove Saddam at the end of the gulf war.) When George H. W. Bush decided not to move against Saddam, the gulf war coalition had 500,000 ground troops on the scene. The idea of undertaking such an effort now seems to me close to lunacy — not only on military grounds but because it would arouse an Islamic backlash menacing to the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. In his speech to Congress President Bush did not lay out the scope of planned retaliation. He made forcefully clear that there would be military action, as there must be. But he also, wisely, spoke of financial and other steps against the terrorists. And he eschewed his earlier gun smoke rhetoric. On internal issues, too, the president left the hard questions unanswered. He said law enforcement must have "the additional tools it needs to track down terror." But what tools? Proposals by Attorney General John Ashcroft for greater government powers of surveillance and detention have raised alarms among both liberals and conservatives. If Congress acts without real consideration and care, it could undermine the very quality of freedom under law that most of the world admires. Americans, we passionately believe, are a humane people. We showed that in restoring wounded economies abroad after World War II, even those of our enemies, Germany and Japan. In due course I think we must make an effort of similar scale to relieve the poverty and misery that are seedbeds for terror in the Middle East. But right now we need to make sure that we do not forget ourselves in our immediate response to the terrorists' criminal assault. President Bush used three words repeatedly in his speech: "freedom," "patience," "justice." They are the right words.

To: c.hinton who wrote (77129)	9/22/2001 11:20:57 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116753

At the risk of appearing radically off topic, I would like to point out that it appears gold is inching up these days. (in price) OK. flame me, but I have to talk about the yellar metal sometimes. (yallar as a duck's foot, by cracky) It's an obsession of mine. Moving up slow on low volume is a powerful sign of strength. It is not gold's usual pattern, as commodities do not act like stocks. They usually rise fast -- gold can move 30 dollars in a day, creating, as they say in the trade papers, palpable excitement. Heresh to shpalpability. (hic) (raises virtual glash of bubbly) It seems to me they moved much too fast in arresting all these Arabs. What are they going to charge them with? Possession of box cutters? Learning to fly without paying attention to landing procedures? Dangerous possession of airport maps? Any flying student might have to have maps of airports. After all they are supposed to have to land the aircraft at them. Just getting to the right gate at some airports could require a map. You have to catch them in the act. At least of trying to board a jet with a knife. What they have in France now is a whole bunch of terrorists they may have to release. Nice work, Sherlock. I used to fly aboard domestic aircraft with carry on luggage with hunting knives and even occasionally an axe! Of course I need these tools in my job in exploration. It was up to the airline if they wanted them in carry-on or not. No matter what the airlines do it will be impossible to always foil a clever enemy. There are always ways to get past any security system. I would estimate that they have several hundred employees on the inside, placed there over the years. Rooting them out will be painful and will cost Arabic people who have nothing to do with this stuff much discrimination. Trusting the broader group some of whom are not sympathetic with these radicals, and allowing a proper latitude of freedom of opinion, will be tough. A simple way to get a certain level of security is to tell people in high risk categories to take the bus. On the other hand they may get fiendish about other things. In the end what do you do? Do you insist that everything that flies be boxed by federally inspected packing companies? It may come to that. Or federal inspectors may be packing the passengers like meat after they crash. Personally If I ran an airline I would not let people use their own luggage. I would supply cardboard cartons and make airline people pack travellers' goods and clothes. Good enough for the vacation. EC<:-}