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: Hawkmoon who wrote (117200)	10/19/2003 12:00:21 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think that your views are too hawkish. I think they are realistic. But then, it's true, I do belong at this point to the majority, which many among the intelligentsia consider extremist. I am convinced that if we fail to acknowledge being at war, our enemy will engage in war-like behavior until we do. I am also convinced that at this point our opposition's strategic target is capturing political power in Muslim countries. We are means to that end. If they succeed, Muslims will pay a much heavier price than we will. If moderate Muslims are any smart, they should understand that and support us. I think that moderate Muslims hope to benefit from the revolutionary energy carried by their extremist fringe, while expecting to be able to control them always. They are wrong. They will pay a heavy price, like the Germans paid for the Nazis - and like the Russian liberals paid for flirting with Bolshevism for several years prior to the revolution.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (117200)	10/19/2003 12:13:24 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The invasion of Afghanistan was hot pursuit of criminal conspirators .... the taliban were not recognised as the legitimate government of the country, and there existed considerable evidence of them aiding the criminals .... so there was just cause for immediate and thorough police action Pearl Harbour was a crime, and also an act of war, coming as it did at the hands of a navy directly controlled by a government considered in legitimate rule of the nation ..... in this case, nations were in fact at war, each with their dozens of millions of citizens involved, something quite unlike Afghanistan You seem to imply that the term 'crime' is somehow less potent than the term 'war', and so criminals may get off lighter, or be pursued with less vigour, than warriors ...... this need not be the case, i think in fact it is the opposite of what should happen - in speaking of crime we are upholding the civilised rule of law, instead of reverting to pure might-makes-right gangland struggle This does not equate to rendering our police less mighty, we still have military forces to augment their capabilities .... there is nothing gained, and considerable advantage lost, in elevating the perpetrators of crimes to the status of warriors, they are just dirty little murdering religious whackos, we should swat them like mosquitos, not honour them in this fashion ..... and in the process retain our respect for law, our dignity, our cool Of course some will resist this approach because it does not hand blank-cheque justification for military control of all sovereign nations to a small group in the back rooms of a any particular national capital, as would the title 'War' .... well tough luck i say, let em B&M, the Rest of Us have a civilisation to build, let's get on with it