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: cosmicforce who wrote (33782)	10/17/2001 4:00:39 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

RE:a failed symbolic war Why do you say that? We have been told that this "war on terrorism" could last for years. Why do you say we have failed? We have hardly begun. It's that kind of talk that makes us look weak and vulnerable to those who would like to destroy us, IMHO.

To: cosmicforce who wrote (33782)	10/17/2001 4:23:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

What makes you think that the military effort we are making is either failed or merely symbolic? Tim

To: cosmicforce who wrote (33782)	10/17/2001 4:37:39 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As long as there is an ongoing threat to American and allied lives, the regimes use of "innocents" as a sort of shielding mechanism must fail, even if it means that many civilians are killed. Given the potential for millions to be killed by the terrorists, if they go unchecked, it is difficult to put a cap on acceptable collateral damage. Additionally, the regime is killing and oppressing and immiserating people, so its overthrow is likely to benefit the people anyway. Thus, we are well within the limits of acceptable collateral damage......

To: cosmicforce who wrote (33782)	10/17/2001 6:03:15 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This is not a math problem. This is a political and military problem. It may be "morally ambiguous" for you; it is not for me and many millions of other people. Moral ambiguity ended on September 11, 2001. As I said, I don't give a d*n how many uninvolved Afghanis are sprawled on the rocks at the end of this if we accomplish our goal. And you may look at that goal as saving civilization from a retreat back to the 7th century. A message may be sent here: If you choose to aid and shelter criminal terrorists, you WILL pay a price you find totally unacceptable. And that message can be sent regardless of whether Afghanistan meets somebody's arbitrary definition of a "nation" or not. It may be sent whether bin Laden is still in Afghanistan or not. And the question of whether Afghanistan has a civil police force, city hall, public schools and a Congress is simply irrelevant. None of these feudal dictatorships are democracies, you know. Will it look like "an end to terrorism?"* It will if it is prosecuted hard enough and far enough.