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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: willcousa who wrote (53577)	10/2/2001 5:19:21 PM
From: mitch-c	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

So since we are prepared to take casualties we should? Just want us to fight smart. So, you think nuking noncombatants to get a few bad actors is "smart?" How, precisely, do you intend to exclude noncombatants from the blast and/or radiation radius of a neutron bomb? Oh, that's right. I forgot. Our nuclear technology is so good we can laser-guide the neutrons. To answer your question, yes, we should risk casualties. The reason we should is that executing a WORKABLE strategy requires that risk. Your standoff-and-nukem approach is not workable. Satisfying, possibly, but ineffective. Max Boot wrote a fairly good piece for the WSJ today on this subject. Check it out. opinionjournal.com - Mitch