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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (15111)	11/4/2003 6:38:59 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793609

This meant that the FBI took case, and the CIA was not even allowed to see the evidence. That approach swept it off the International Terrorist table. I understand that there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to each paradigm. I understand, also, that, within each paradigm, there are strategies that are more effective or less effective and obstacles to be overcome. Both paradigms can be amended as needed. And both can be used in conjunction when that is the best approach. Just because one paradigm wasn't implemented as well as it could have been doesn't necessarily mean that the paradigm is useless. I bought into the war paradigm for Afghanistan, totally. I'm balking at turning that into the default, into carte blanche. I'm balking at potentially and carelessly turning that camel's nose into WWIII. It's one thing to bomb Wahhabi madrassas, al Qaeda training camps, Hamas HQ, munitions factories, etc. or interdict ships loaded with WMD. It's another to invade and occupy countries at will. And swagger as we do it, for heaven's sake. I thought we were supposed to be the good guys. Only punks turn every incident into a bar fight.