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: Rollcast... who wrote (39388)	8/22/2002 2:19:16 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There's " Doubt " And There's " Opposition ". Then there's " concern " " skepticism " uncertainty " " probability " hesitancy " likelihood " " apprehension “ " contrariety " " controversy " " renitence " " oppugnation " and last but not least ... " adversarial ". The semantics are important when describing different views, which may be somewhat categorized as: Those who might think the whole thing’s a cakewalk, no problemo, we’ll be home fer dinner , type of attitude, willing to brush off anything that appears to be of concern and rev up the war machine fer fun and frolic on “ the beach “. Ta hell with international law, precedent setting global actions and realistically acceptable reasoning for action in the first place. Then there are those who wish to evaluate the options and circumstance to better decide in their own minds what is the best action , if any.To fully evaluate the legal , practical , ethical and wise choices at hand , through open discussion with references and other’s opinions to consider. Then there are the “ No War – No Way “ folks who would need to see the blinding flash of light before they realized they were in trouble and coulda woulda shoulda done something about it earlier. One almost needs a spectrum analyzer to monitor the rising and falling peaks and valleys across the bandwidth to get a good representation of the combination of influences from the intermodulation being generated, while ensuring signal to noise and distortion levels remain in check so as to not overly and overtly influence the results, electronically speaking of course. So all play their part in shaping the waveform that is public opinion, professional debate, and hopefully then policy, in a democracy with idealisms and structure worthy of export.It should never be left to the “ professionals “ alone to decide, no matter what Von Rumsfield says.They don’t always do what’s in the best interest of those they represent, and when it comes right down to it , they too are mere mortals capable of error. Debate is necessary.Answers are a must.Congressional & U.N. approval, in this case, should be mandatory. KC

To: Rollcast... who wrote (39388)	8/22/2002 10:43:16 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I suppose I could add equivalent language and generalizations to my posts about Win's team... phrases like "appeasement cowards", "quasi-lib radicals more interested in creating the slightest chance of another, even more damaging attack than 9/11"... Maybe just plain "blame America first, self hating dems hoping, deep in their hearts, that America will fail to secure itself from further attacks like 9/11..." The thread is Ken's to run as he pleases and us to stay or leave as we are pleased or displeased with his stewardship. If I were running it, however, I would consider Win's comments just inside the line and your's just outside. The content of yours which goes over the line is the notion that critics hope " . . that America will fail to secure itself from further attacks like 9/11>" That's tantamount to the claim that Bush's critics are traitors. That's over the line. But then I don't run the thread.