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: Lane3 who wrote (31073)	10/6/2001 12:54:05 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Thank you for posting that, Karen. One of the best articles I've seen yet dealing with what can be deemed an "appropriate response" to the WTC attack. I am still on the 'side' of declaration of war, but totally agree with the author that the communications we are hearing from the Administration are having the effect of muddling that declaration to a certain extent. snip Whether this is "really" war does not depend on whether the terrorists have a fixed and well-defined territory. The network may be difficult to locate, but so are troop installations and armament factories that become targets in the case of conventional warfare. If the United States lands troops in a country for the exclusive purpose of locating and uprooting terrorist cells, there is no sound reason for indigenous armies to resist us, unless, of course, the local government wishes to support the right of terrorists to organize on its territory. The problem with calling this "war" is, therefore, grossly exaggerated.<< Indeed there is no "sound reason' for indigenous armies to resist us if the ultimate goal is to root out terrorist cells that have found safe harbor within their borders. AND they agree with our stated policy. However, IF the sponsoring states truly want the terrorist network to remain for internal political reasons, well you can see why paying "lip service" may ultimately become the fulcrum when push comes to shove. Bush said in his speech you are either for us or against us in the war against terrorism. A bright line of demarcation had been drawn. I'm hoping that in choosing our military battle by targeting Taliban as a sponsoring "state" the administration is preparing to send a military "message" to the other states that continue to harbor the network of terrorists. I'm not totally convinced yet. But so far it appears that we are doing a very good job of isolating Taliban in preparation for a military strike. Especially our utilization of Tony Blair.