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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (8896)	10/28/2001 8:44:04 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27666

MSI-- No one WANTS any ground in the region. However any country that is foolish enough to harbor or assist the idiots of terrorism should know the possibilities. I'd really rather not have any ground there but give it to the Isralies. I'm still trying to understand "extralegal issues," as if any American should give a damn,Scarlett. Additionally, " If our actions rely simply on force, we won't escape the backlash" well we got one hell of a slap on the tush for doing nothing. Dead terrorists are no threat. A few extra dead are just a reminder to those that are thinking of taking Bennys place. There are many examples of the embargo threat that does not work-- Castro must love your thought process...

To: MSI who wrote (8896)	10/28/2001 8:49:49 PM
From: Captain Jack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27666

MSI-- Senate Approves Vietnam Trade Pact - That says it all. One the few friends our POW/MIA have in the Senate did issue a statement regarding the new Trade Pact with Vietnam. The following statement from the Office of Senator Bob Smith, October 3, 2001 was "Spoken on the floor of the United States Senate." "I do not want to normalize trade relations with Vietnam for a number of reasons--first and foremost, because they have never fully accounted for our POWs and MIAs, and I don't care how many people come on the floor [of the Senate] and say they did. They have not. It is an issue I have worked on for 17 years, and I can tell you right now they have not fully cooperated in accounting for POWs. If anyone wants to sit down with me and go through it on a case-by-case basis, I will be happy to do it." "Paul Wolfowitz [Deputy Secretary of Defense] agrees. The archives have not been opened. Have they been cooperative to some extent? Yes. Have they been fully cooperative? No. There are lots of families out there who have not gotten information on their loved ones that the Vietnamese could provide. They have not done it. So I don't want to hear this stuff that they are fully cooperative. They are not fully cooperative. There is a big difference between being cooperative and being fully cooperative. They are not cooperative fully. You can ask anyone who works on this issue on the Intelligence Committee--and certainly Paul Wolfowitz knows what he is talking about. He says they are not fully cooperative." "So let's not stand on the floor of the Senate and say let's normalize trade with Vietnam because they have been fully cooperative when every one of us knows differently. End of story; they are not."

To: MSI who wrote (8896)	10/28/2001 10:04:49 PM
From: CountofMoneyCristo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

We cannot win an escalating battle of violence. That strikes me as a pretty defeatist attitude. It is also highly dangerous and I hope our government does not share your view on this subject. I wonder what would have been the result after December 7, 1941 if we had decided we could not win "an escalating battle of violence." By the way, if these terrorists or the states who sponsor them attack us again like they did on September 11, take a poll. I believe it is likely that at that point there will be an enormous clamor among the American public to introduce nuclear weapons into this conflict. Funny, if the United States is attacked at will, thousands are brutally murdered in public, and it lacks the will to use ALL weapons it possesses to defend itself against evil, then the deterrent value of American military power will be virtually nil. During the Gulf War Saddam Hussein was warned that if he used biological or chemical weapons there would be an American nuclear response. I think it is fast becoming obvious that Iraq has been involved in these atrocities. So, the choices are two: a massive conventional invasion and occupation, or a nuclear strike as a warning. The former is infinitely preferable. If another major attack takes place, the government may no longer have the public behind the former option, leaving only the latter. That is not the position we want to be in right now.

To: MSI who wrote (8896)	10/28/2001 10:30:40 PM
From: joseph krinsky	Respond to of 27666

We can't lose in an escalating war. It's probably the way it should be fought to save lives in the long run. If we stop trading with saudi, we'll hurt ourselves more than we'll hurt them right now. We need to develop the methane hydrate deposits offshore, (probably a 2000 year supply) ramp up alternative uses of energy, (windpower, natural gas, fuel cells, hydrogen gas, solar power, coal) to the point where we don't need one drop of outside oil, and THEN cut off all trade with the oil producing countries from that region. The U.S. doesn't want land, if we did, Europe would have been our 49th state, and Alaska and Hawaii would have been 50 and 51. Moral authority is established by who wins a war. Had the Germans won WW2, believe me, they would have had the "moral authority". LOL LOL

To: MSI who wrote (8896)	10/29/2001 10:32:10 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

In Post # 8896 you stated......" Those countries that fail to meet our requirements or give aid and comfort to our enemies are not allowed to trade with us, and must be content to sell their wares to the ROW. Saudi Arabia, for example, will be bankrupt if they don't sell to the U.S., since the ROW cannot absorb as much as they need to sell to maintain payments on their debt, completely aside from their corrupt royalty costs and terrorism support budget.".... Ok lets say we stop trade with all those countries, that would be just about all the mid east.....Question? Just how many US$ do these countries hold as reserve? and what happens to the US$ when these countries have no further use for them ? ......" Saudi Arabia, for example, will be bankrupt if they don't sell to the U.S., since the ROW cannot absorb as much as they need to sell to maintain payments on their debt,"...... question?....Why would Saudi Arabia or any of these countries bother to pay their debts??