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: stockman_scott who wrote (43236)	9/11/2002 11:19:57 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

At least Ted Rall serves to prove that we are not stifling dissent, as the Left keeps asserting. If we were stifling dissent, no paper in the country would print these lies. And we killed a lot of people, too. We killed so many that nobody's sure of the exact number: 84 accidentally-bombed Afghans who were either neutral or on our side. Four Canadian soldiers. 40 innocent people celebrating a wedding. Several U.S. servicemen died in helicopter mishaps. Estimates range from 3,500 to 10,000 total, and that's not including the Taliban troops we killed on purpose--even though they had nothing to do with 9-11. The estimates Rall quotes come from Taliban figures (actually, I think the 10,000 figure is even higher than the Taliban claims). After the Taliban fell, AP and Reuters did a survey, sending reporters all over the country to get an accurate count. That estimate was 600 - 1000 people.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (43236)	9/12/2002 1:18:35 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The End of Moderation. The Bush Administration's hard right turn after 9-11 forces all Americans to take firm stands on various issues. If you say that you support George W. Bush, many people will assume that you despise the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, working people and the middle class. "Isn't there some middle ground?" a friend asked me the other day. "Can't I be a moderate Republican?" Not any more. Neo-McCarthyism is at war with democracy, and it's time for every American to stand up and be counted. I keep hearing about this Neo_McCarthyism, but have no idea what it refers to. Perhaps with efforts to do better at investigating terrorist infiltration of this country? Unlike Joseph McCarthy's Communists, who were of questionable threat value, we KNOW the muslim extremists living in this country are a very dire threat. Some people remain locked in old modes of thought. Derek

To: stockman_scott who wrote (43236)	9/12/2002 2:18:55 AM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I have been taking some time off from this board to reflect on the past year. I will write my thoughts somewhere and post them here. This editorial provoked one of my new thoughts. There are some political luxuries that we cannot afford today. We are facing an extremly uncertain world and our attempts to understand and communicate this world require a maturity that has not existed for the past decade. This is true of all sides of all debates regarding the post-9/11 world. This editorial argues by the use of 'extreme analagy'. The comparrison to McCarthyism does not hold. The intent of the argument is it enflame not inform. We could afford this type of political non-thinking 3 years ago. Now, the stakes are too high. I am not saying this because this piece is too liberal for my tastes. I am certain I could find something from Ann Coulter, George Will or Rush Limbaugh that would provide prime examples of extreme analogy. I want and encourage dissent. There will be a dangerous tendancy for a goverment to go too far in the name of protection. It is the nature of goverments to attempt to get more power over those governed. Dissent and careful persuasive argument are a critical check on that process. The only way we will ever remove the uncertainty of the times is to remove the old rhetorical tactics and think. Watch what reveals itself and communicate authentically with each. Paul