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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (29815)	9/27/2001 9:44:50 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

We could talk tough to them. You know how hurtful words can be... -gg-

To: jlallen who wrote (29815)	9/27/2001 9:58:47 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

Let's see. I liked Bill's idea. I would rather do nothing than do the wrong thing. The wrong thing is almost always worse than nothing. If it were me in charge I'd wonder, as I said before, if Osama could have an "accident" involving Russian land mines, or perhaps a member of the opposition Afghani rebels could kill him. Might take some time to set something like that up- but the payoff? It wouldn't be obvious that the US was behind his death. Of course some people are ALWAYS so suspicious. But it is always a good idea not to give the suspicious people too much good hard evidence. It would be smart to destabilize the Taliban. Sneakily. And then to set up a generous aid program to the (hopefully) more moderate regime that takes over. It might take a while, but it would be better than bombing a bunch of Afghanis who were already bombed by the Russians, brutalized by the Taliban, and who don't even have much idea what is going on in the rest of the world because they don't have much electrical power, nor do they have much access to TV's and Radios. So stealth and good planning involving the elimination of key enemies and lots of aid. That's my idea.