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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (185017)	3/17/2004 6:03:17 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577824

Ted, Do you really believe that Bush has all the bases covered? I trust that Bush has all the bases covered. I'd prefer to see more decisive reforms within our military and our intelligence agencies, but what the heck do I know? By the way, I'm wondering these days whether the standby argument, "better intelligence and better law enforcement," is an exercise in intellectual laziness. God knows I've made the same arguments before, but now I have to wonder exactly what that means. Does "better intelligence" include Big Brother security measures and prisoner torture? Does "better law enforcement" mean taking steps toward a police state? If not, then what else do we do? I see two other alternatives: (a) Just accept the fact that terrorism is a part of our lives (the John Fowler argument, which also pointed out that the chances of dying in a terrorism attack is still low) or (b) Take the fight to the terrorist's home turf and start fixing the source of the problems (the "neo-conservative experiment" that zofsilence pointed out). Of course, there is a third alternative, which is to appease the terrorists and give them what they want, but I doubt most Americans want to go that route. Tenchusatsu