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.

Pastimes : NNBM - SI Branch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: altair19 who wrote (17480)	10/13/2002 4:39:10 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 104197

Re: <But why doesn't the president also talk about the other fear - of war?> Altair19: You make some great points... <<...I do have a huge bias against people who bobbed and weaved the draft in the 60's and nestled into some National Guard unit lecturing me about living in fear...>> I couldn't agree more with that. Now the Washington Post in a new front page story today tells us how the NeoCon WarHawk Mr. Cheney is dominating the development of U.S. Foreign Policy... Cheney Is Fulcrum of Foreign Policy In Interagency Fights, His Views Often Prevail By Glenn Kessler and Peter Slevin Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, October 13, 2002; Page A01 washingtonpost.com <<...Cheney declined requests through his office to be interviewed for this article. But according to sources familiar with his thinking, Cheney believes he brings to the administration's foreign policy debate a hardheaded realism about geopolitics. In his view, the United States owes no apology for being a great power and, in fact, has a responsibility to act forcefully to build a world in the image of the United States...>> I can see why Cheney doesn't like to do interviews...he likes EVERYTHING to be secret (and sometimes decided on in bunkers <G>)...remember, he's never served in the military and is now being sued because he hasn't released the papers about how U.S. energy policy was developed...nothing like some embarrassing meetings w/ Kenny Boy from the good ship Enron =)......And then there's Cheney's track record as CEO of Hallburton -- all I can say is that its very questionable... Even The SEC has a major investigation going on....I sure wouldn't trust Cheney BUT I guess Dubya does -- of course neither of them have really ever spent time in the armed services out 'in the trenches'(like the distinguished soldier Colin Powell)...Who really understands what war is all about.??...When are folks going to ask our current leaders to answer the tough questions..?? -el Columbo

To: altair19 who wrote (17480)	10/13/2002 4:52:33 PM
From: elpolvo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 104197

VietnamVet19- I do have a huge bias against people who bobbed and weaved the draft in the 60's and nestled into some National Guard unit lecturing me about living in fear. me2... but... i have the greatest respect for those who conscientiously object to participating in war(s)... those who register that resolve with their draft board and are willing to stake their lives and their reputations on their beliefs in non-violence... those who are willing to walk into the valley of the shadow of death unarmed. i don't talk about jesus much because i'm not an organized religion supporter. but that dude is a hero to me. the way he lived his life... the way he staked his life on his belief in non-violence is admirable. turn the other cheek?... YES! but love and trust your brother enough that in doing so, he will know why you turned it... he will respect your courage and stamina, and it will change his life. busting the first cheek is usually done in striking out in anger at perceived evil or danger... but busting the other cheek is more painful for the striker than the strikee. it is NOT possible to do that and preserve your dignity or validity as a living being... and if you lose that... you lose all reason for living. goodbye rome... goodbye segregation... goodbye apartheid. i know what you're saying rob. you're talking about the hypocrites. they're no fun. i just wanted to say a few words about the heros who "dodged" the draft but did not "dodge" their responsibility to the growth of human life on earth. -elpolvo (1AO classification)

To: altair19 who wrote (17480)	10/14/2002 3:17:41 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 104197

Dead or alive -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Editorial Originally published October 14, 2002 The Baltiore Sun A YEAR AGO, the nation's fury focused on Osama bin Laden. He was Public Enemy No. 1, and the main point of the air war just getting started in Afghanistan was to overthrow the Taliban so that we could get a fair shot at our real quarry. The Taliban, overthrown, have drifted into the Afghan wilderness. Bin Laden never gave us the satisfaction of dying on the battlefield. He may have been cornered at Tora Bora -- but if so, he got away. Unless he died in a bombed-in cave. That is, assuming he didn't succumb to kidney failure first. In recent days, an audiotape and an intercepted satellite phone conversation have again raised the possibility that he is alive and functioning somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan. But the reports were treated, generally, as intriguing curiosities. That's because Osama bin Laden, whether he's a fugitive or a dead man, doesn't quite matter so much anymore. Al-Qaida, though clearly diminished, survives -- certainly in the mountains of Asia, most likely in cells in the cities of Western Europe, very probably here in America. A U.S. soldier is killed in the Philippines; a Marine is shot dead in Kuwait; a French tanker is attacked off the coast of Yemen, where bin Laden is something of a folk hero. All appear to be the work of al-Qaida. U.S. officials believe that more is in the offing. The Bush administration has come under a certain amount of criticism for demonizing bin Laden a year ago and then gradually forgetting about him. True enough, a big manhunt coming up empty has a way of making anyone want to change the subject. But the real goal here is -- as it always should have been -- to smash his terrorist organization. That means establishing and extending good intelligence, countering plots, freezing assets. It's long-term work and not very sensational. Of course, if bin Laden were to re-emerge from the shadows it would be better to catch him than not, for all kinds of reasons having to do with justice and pre-emption, among other things. But the machinery he helped to create -- the system of autonomous cells coupled with the fanatical daring to act against Western targets -- is in place. Whether he's "in charge" is no longer the question. In World War II, the Allies did not concentrate on snaring Hitler; the focus was on defeating Hitler's army. Now that the White House is eager to press the attack on another sort of demon -- the one in Baghdad -- it would be unfortunate in the extreme if al-Qaida were lost sight of altogether. This, after all, is the organization that successfully brought death and terror to our shores a year ago. It poses not a potential threat but a very real one to America and Americans, with or without Osama bin Laden. Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun sunspot.net