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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (7967)	2/13/2003 8:38:58 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

A truly Orwelling phrase to describe a sudden shock and awe attack on a population, half of which are age 15 or less. there is a large percentage of teenagers in Afghanistan , many of them were Taleban , and how many of them died with our being there ? And what if , by simple twist of fate , we --->are seen as liberators of the majority of Iraqi's from this tyrant? Kind of throws things off a bit , doesn't it ? Better to think thru the post-liberation steps , and stabilizing the country once it is finished.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (7967)	2/18/2003 1:51:44 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 25898

A truly Orwelling [sic] phrase... I'm quite sure you meant "Orwellian." But at any rate, I think your characterization of a preemptive strike against a state that has supported terrorism as anything but defensive in nature is, well, doubleplusungood. ...to describe a sudden shock and awe [sic?] attack... An "awe" attack? (Aw.) And I'd hardly describe any impending attack, at such time as it arrives, as "sudden" (given the U.N. waffling). We've given the Iraqi military far too much time to prepare for what's almost certainly coming, and assuredly to the greater peril of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. ...on a population[...] To the extent that their military forces constitute a subset of their population, you'd better believe they'll be hit, and hard. Hundreds of cruise missiles, B-52 strikes, the works. Happily, we don't intentionally strike (and overwhelmingly take pains to avoid) civilian populations, which is contrary to the operational mantra of the types of organizations which Hussein's Iraq supports. ...half of which are age 15 or less. Again, all the more reason why it's wonderful - indeed, morally right - that we don't attack civilian populations. I was hoping that you had some kind of documentation to back up this assertion, but I really have no reason to doubt it at face value. In considering it, though, a more immediate issue comes to mind: if you're using this as a reason not to attack preemptively, what would you recommend the child:adult ratio be before we commit troops in a given situation? 4:1? 10:1? And via what logic or calculation does that proportion find its derivation? By this laughable rationale, isn't the next generation of national defense a baby boom? LPS5