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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (113887)	9/4/2003 3:14:25 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

They would just get more urgent, and I'd be more angry at the losing methods of this Administration. You'd be urgent to do exactly WHAT, Jacob? Urgently succumb to whatever demand your enemy required of you? Would you have said the same thing to FDR over Pearl Harbor?? Or more applicable, what about Wilson with regard to WWI, where there was no outright attack upon the homeland of the US by an enemy?? Both wars were provoked by losses of life amounting to less than the human cost of 9/11. There are alternatives (which I and others have listed and discussed in great detail, on this thread), different principles, ideologies, methods, which could bring victory, and which you reject. Exactly what strategies would you SO URGENTLY have done different Jacob, pray tell?? If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. Then why didn't Israel talk with Arafat and the PLO? Talking to one's enemies is NOT the same as caving in to their every demand, or threat. Nor does it include being so desperate for peace that one accepts continued hostile acts as the price they have to pay for it.. If we keep on the road we're on, our enemies will someday use nuclear weapons against us. Please apply this to how the US dealt with both the USSR and Communist China after each exploded their first nuclear device? Hawk