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: unclewest who wrote (30870)	5/27/2002 9:32:19 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

attacking, capturing or destroying related civilian property has always been part of the war process Now let me get this straight. Are you telling me that in, say, Viet Nam, if a Viet Namese killed an American, that the Americans would go to his parent's house and destroy it? Systematically, dispassionately, under color of law, for over twenty years? Sorry, I don't believe you. I believe this could happen in the heat of war, isolated incidences, by angry men, but not acting under full authority of the legal system.

To: unclewest who wrote (30870)	5/27/2002 12:34:47 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I take it, from this post, Mike, that you are not bothered by the FBI's failure with the Minneapolis and Phoenix stuff, that you think we don't need a moment to bring bureaucratic failure into the sunlight, that because of 9-11 we don't need to rethink how we do intelligence. Well, I guess you don't. Since it appears you think all bad comes with the dems and all good with the reps. Mike, there is more than enough blame to go around for this administration and several administrations back. Life's a great deal more complicated. And politics as well.

To: unclewest who wrote (30870)	5/27/2002 12:58:54 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Respond to of 281500

>>>i believe America is going to get taken to some more classes on this very subject and soon.<<< I think it is blown well out of proportion Uncle.Seems to me Osama is indeed winning this war of terror as long as Americans are scared into looking under every rock for a bogeyman. I believe in good Airport security as well as many other types of transportation and communications efforts , but to seal of your entire country and have everyone on guard for the rest of their lives is not feasible...logistically ... socially...or otherwise. Those with military, security and law enforcement backgrounds think differently every day they get out of bed and go to work than the average Joe or Jane 6P.They can't even be trained to be in this constant state of awareness , alone alert , over any period of time , let alone expect the odd alert from Washington to dramatically change their modus operandi. Speaking of which , I think the more these alerts are sounded and nothing happens , the more complacent people will become about them...the " Cry wolf " syndrome , eh? I don't think,for what ever reason , this administration is going to be capable of tackling homeland security without getting very serious about it and getting the American people very serious about it. That will take a bold and objectionable ( to many )stance that will curtail liberties and subject higher risk groups to closer scrutiny without the stigma of racism or profiling being attached.... or whatever else that appears UN- American in today's US society. But then too Osama will have appeared to have won! Bottom line? I think the best way for America to confront ( and actually win )the terrorist battle at home is not to fight it at all.That still means maintaining better security ( which is always best anyway ) and still be on the lookout for suspicious activity from groups of known active backgrounds , but cut this farking fear mongering day in and day out...it just ain't American! I bet if you asked the terrorists how best to defeat their cause , that's what they would tell you. My two canuklehead cents worth. Happy Memorial Day America. KC PS : And go see a movie fer g-d’s sake : drudgereport.com Heh heh heh

To: unclewest who wrote (30870)	5/28/2002 12:11:16 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi unclewest; Re: "CB, attacking, capturing or destroying related civilian property has always been part of the war process." [With regard to destroying homes shared by suicide bombers in Palestine.] I agree with your observation completely, but Israel is not at war with the Palestinians. What they're doing is an ineffectual police action. My problem with the Israeli actions is not necessarily the morality, but the efficacy. This nation brought the Germans and Japanese to their knees (begging for us to accept their unconditional surrender in return for peace), by killing about 2% of their populations per year. There are something like 5 million Palestinians. Israel would have to kill 100,000 per year to match what we did. But they're not even close to doing that. All that the Israelis are doing is breeding hatred. And the Palestinians are doing the same. Unconditional surrender is a simple policy objective. "Limited war" as in Vietnam, is a much more difficult thing, particularly when the objective is to make the other guy quit fighting. Here is an example of what the loser says when the fighting really is over: I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say, "Yes" or "No." He who led the young men [Olikut] is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are -- perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever. 4literature.net Getting the other guy to say something like this should be the objective of offensive (i.e. going into another guys territory and breaking things) military action. Anything less is to throw away the lives of our men, and to uselessly take the lives of those on the other side. Weak action only deepens the anger of the other side and makes him believe that he can outlast you. -- Carl