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: Dayuhan who wrote (1342)	9/25/2001 2:50:47 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Good analysis, Steven. eom

To: Dayuhan who wrote (1342)	9/25/2001 3:27:59 AM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"I hope, very fervently, that ... the people pulling the strings realize that the important part of the fight is not going to be conducted with bombs, missiles, and soldiers." Hope so, too. However, these are warriors, not worriers Certainly the internal maneuvering between Powell & Wolfowitz seems to indicate Powell's understanding that we are most threatening and powerful JUST PRIOR to taking any military action, rather than after. That massive potential combined with diplomacy and incredible financial leverage (we're over $30b for openers, which is a lot over there) must have effect in convincing other target countries to not be beholden to their terrorists holding them hostage. Once those dominoes fall, the Taliban have to become much smaller, fast, if there's any truth to the reports of troops running to the NA. Their support rests solely on their appearance of winning. Suicide is a very bad military policy, after all, unless you get more suckers, which you won't get to a perceived losing cause. Even worrisome international cells rely upon confidence and logistical support from the leadership. All that would be left would be random brainwashed for-hire thugs, not a pleasant prospect, but better than an organized jihad. If that rosy scenario plays out, the question is how best to produce a safer world for the long term, more specifically a safer America, which, after all, is what we are paying our lives and taxes for. I see the problem as that last part because everyone in the world continues to believe we are responsible for (and can afford) the well-being of everyone on the planet, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. And that we can afford just to play nice, which you're afraid we won't do. OTOH, just to ease our minds let's say it gets out of hand, with the "bomb them all crowd" - the Muslim allies then "take positions that render them more vulnerable to subversion". How long do you think they will lie down and accept that? Aren't they being held hostage?