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: LindyBill who wrote (58321)	11/22/2002 2:35:02 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If you sacrifice your liberty for security you deserve neither. I didn't say it. One of our founding fathers did. But I agree with it. The cost of freedom is a certain amount of insecurity. I do not think it is possible to have everything.

To: LindyBill who wrote (58321)	11/22/2002 2:42:35 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I hope this isn't ot- I apologize if it is. But I would guess you probably support the idea of MAD (mutually assured destruction). In building our nuclear arsenal we lived with the terror that those weapons might be used, in order to assure that we would remain a democracy, and not be conquered by the communist threat. If you are willing to defend your liberty by living with the terror that you may be forced to incinerate the world via nuclear war, certainly living with a few terrorist attacks (no matter how awful) is a small price to pay for your liberty in comparison.

To: LindyBill who wrote (58321)	11/22/2002 3:21:59 PM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 281500

We will never "accept a certain amount of terror." NEVER! You are not being realistic, IMO. Each year there are about 30,000 bombing incidents in the US -- how in the world would you suggest we make this go to zero? We cannot spend infinite money to do it. We routinely trade off safety vs cost and live with it: automobiles, jet fighters, food, police, the DOD, etc.... --fl

To: LindyBill who wrote (58321)	11/25/2002 2:08:46 PM
From: jcky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

We will never "accept a certain amount of terror." NEVER! I can read an underlying current in a lot of posts here that intimates we ought to. Oh, but we have. We have accepted the violence and terror of inner city youths which condemn them to a life of poverty and crime. Urban gangs terrorize and run the streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and the list goes on. This way of life has been glamorized by Hollywood and capitalized by the music and fashion industries. We have accepted the terror and violence perpetrated against women, minorities, children, and the homeless. It has become second nature to look the other way. The most current social fad is blaming the victims. And so, too, will American eventually accept a certain level of terror because life is never a guarantee and the costs of maintaining a democratic society implies the trade between certain civil liberties and security. It is not a pleasant choice but it is reality, unless of course, we all decide to live in a fascist state.