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: thames_sider who wrote (37663)	11/20/2001 9:45:19 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

We blew up Nagasaki and Hiroshima because we thought we'd lose a lot of men invading. Were we cowards? Was our President who authorized the mission a coward? I don't think Truman was a coward. But he certainly took the easy way out, didn't he? I think it was a tough call to make. I disagree with what he did, because I don't think nuclear weapons should ever have been used. I think the fact that we set the precedent for their use will eventually mean they get used again. But I hope I'm wrong. Would I have killed a million men to keep the principle of non-use of nuclear weapons? yes. But that doesn't make me braver than Truman, or more cowardly.. It simply means we analyze things differently.

To: thames_sider who wrote (37663)	11/20/2001 9:52:01 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Incidentally, I probably wouldn't stand nose-to-nose with some trained IRA murderer with less-than-no regard for human life and tell him what I think of his intellect, morals, antecedents and reproductive capabilities. Does that make me a coward? Equally, I wouldn't go in for a mutual testicle-biting competition against a bull terrier. But I don't believe this proves me a coward, either. Of course, if anyone's willing to take on this challenge, then I'll accept it coming from them (afterwards) <g>

To: thames_sider who wrote (37663)	11/20/2001 10:00:28 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I do not know the precise percentage of military targets attacked by the IRA. It seems to me that they have so often targeted civilians that it hardly matters, although I might have to modify my "practically exclusive" to "habitual targeting of civilians". The difference between guerrillas and terrorists is not that obscure. The Vietcong were always regarded as guerrillas, even by their enemies, the IRA were always regarded as terrorists, except by apologists, and even some of them merely argued exigency. A lot of this kind of discussion surrounded the Gulf War, in determining how formidable a foe Saddam Hussein would be, or how hard his army, the fourth largest in the world, would fight. As it turned out, Saddam's ferocity was mainly wind, and his army was a paper tiger. So it has turned out with the Taliban. We would be making a grave mistake to give al- Qaida to much credit........