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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (185041)	3/17/2004 6:45:17 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578239

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? You've got to stop trusting, Ten. The Spaniards trusted Aznar and he was trying to screw them. Bush and Aznar are cut from the same cloth. 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? Better intel means catching terrorists before they blow something up. 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. No one including the Europeans accepts the third choice. I suspect we will have to learn to live with number one [the JF choice], and at some point, when we get an enlightened president into power, do some of the stuff Z [choice number two] is talking about without the neocon's penchant for war. If we do the latter [Z's choice], the fears from number one should begin to ameliorate. ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (185041)	3/18/2004 7:43:51 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1578239

Ten, re: 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) That's not quite my position. I support strong, smart defensive measures. I support covert operations to stop covert (terrorist) operations. I support getting every willing country in the world involved in fighting terrorism, and isolating those that won't get involved. I don't support the "war" on terrorism. It's not a war, anymore than the "war on drugs" was a war. Does anyone really think that we can completely eradicate terrorism, anymore than we can completely eradicate drug use? Or completely eradicate crime? No, the best we can do is to make terrorism very, very difficult. Look back at the terrorism in Europe in the 70's. There were no decisive battles that led to it's end. There was just a lot of vigilance and good police work, and it slowly declined and then pretty much went away. What we're doing now is increasing the threat. Bush is the poster boy for terrorist recruiting. We're helping them. You can't fight ghosts with armies. John