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: RocketMan who wrote (2314)	10/2/2001 10:15:16 PM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Shooting from the hip, so to speak, although the defensive use of nuclear weapons would be better justified than their offensive use, I wonder whether it would only escalate a regional conflict to a worldwide one, with "us" having more to lose than "them." I somehow think the loss on both sides would make this option unthinkable, and maybe the fact that even if I live through the excitement, the likelihood that the value of my own real estate would drop to $0 for at least 50+ years colors my thinking. The trade-off of my humble home in the U.S. for their tents or caves hardly seems equitable. Again, bin Laden and the Taliban and their followers are a very few extremists surrounded by millions of peaceful Muslims whose own lives have been made miserable by them. Why would we intentionally murder innocent civilians when we know better, and don't have to? BTW, thanks for the reference to "pacifist." You're the first person in my life who's ever connected that image with me. My father, a WWII vet, used to introduce me to friends in his political circles as being two steps to the right of Atilla the Hun. I guess I've mellowed. <g>.

To: RocketMan who wrote (2314)	10/3/2001 4:24:47 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I would say the biggest argument gainst using WMD (nukes, bio, chem) is in looking at the map of Little Pashir where he's likely holed up. Shall we let our lethal clouds drift into Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Uzbekhistan, Russia or China? Which would say "Thass okay Uncle Sammie, we lost a few thousand folks and some crops, but goshdarnit, we got the dirty rat, didm't we?" On another note, besides that intersection being a deterrent, it also grants him more avenues to escape through. And is there the least irony in the idea that a Saudi guy we funded and armed sits in a base built by the Soviets that he played a major role in kicking out, that he declared war on us because we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, which we placed there to fight Hussein, who invaded Kuwait possibly in part because our Ambassador Glaspie indicated we would not intervene, and who himself was armed by us to do battle with Iran, because Iran's ayatollahs were threatening our oil interests, but they came to power in a popular insurrection against the Shah, another guy who we armed, because we feared his predescessor might succumb to Soviet control, annnnnnd...... (deep breath)...... the foe we were against at the beginning and end of this ring-around-the-rosie (the Russkies) are now allied with us, as is OBL's native country, as is Pakistan, who helped create and maintain the Taliban, and the Taliban are Pushtuns, kin to Iranians, and we are tiptoeing through a path we hope yields a future alliance with Iran, annnnnnd...... ...we have to claim, with a straight face, that Bin Ladin is the lunatic? If this were "What's My Line", and they had to choose the real lunatic, I have a hunch either Bill Cullen or Kitty Carlisle would move to Tibet and practice Buddhism.