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: Raymond Duray who wrote (7844)	10/28/2001 2:26:39 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Oh c'mon. I know lots of Americans. I don't know many supercilious hubris-bloated ones. Just because an attack on innocent civilians has plenty of precedence does not fill any fresh justification with the honor of truth. The 'why' of this attack is a moot point. If our response to a terrorist act is to carefully consider a list of grievances and meet the demands, that emboldens further terrorism. Negotiations at gunpoint never work to a common good; the gunholder gains. I understand that foreign policy gets hijacked and its participants should have to undergo more patdowns of oversight, as do you. No one had to fly a 707 into our skulls to convince us and we need to make it clear to a cruel group of people in a universal language they best understand: the fear of a greater cruelty. Barbaric? Perhaps. War requires effectiveness, not definition. The outcome is always unhappy, but things get unhappier if it's not fought effectively, because it ends slower. Defining opponents in a debate does not move the debate forward either.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7844)	10/28/2001 2:29:19 AM
From: SirRealist	Respond to of 281500

Oh c'mon. I know lots of Americans. I don't know many supercilious hubris-bloated ones. Just because an attack on innocent civilians has plenty of precedence does not fill any fresh justification with the honor of truth. The 'why' of this attack is a moot point. If our response to a terrorist act is to carefully consider a list of grievances and meet the demands, that emboldens further terrorism. Negotiations at gunpoint never work to a common good; the gunholder gains. I understand that foreign policy gets hijacked and its participants should have to undergo more patdowns of oversight, as do you. No one had to fly a 707 into our skulls to convince us and we need to make it clear to a cruel group of people in a universal language they best understand: the fear of a greater cruelty. Barbaric? Perhaps. War requires effectiveness, not definition. The outcome is always unhappy, but things get unhappier if it's not fought effectively, because it ends slower. Defining opponents in a debate does not move the debate forward either.

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7844)	10/28/2001 9:03:41 AM
From: Carolyn	Respond to of 281500

Of course I get it. And I still say it was stunning, unwarranted, unacceptable, evil. All this B.S. about how awful we are, our hubris, yada, yada, yada is pure high school envy. You think the actions of 9/11 were justified? That's the crock that all the freaks over there are saying - and you are buying into it!!!! NO THANKS! Afghanistan, by its very location, is a crossroads. Everyone knows that. So what. If complete idiots shoose to run their country into the ground, they set up a vacuum which will be filled.