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: Maurice Winn who wrote (134468)	5/26/2004 4:02:34 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It would be better to whittle- but I'm not sure all the world's terrorists are rational enough to whittle- do you think so? It seems to me that the enraged are per se irrational, and are prone to stinkin' thinkin' (that's a nod to Stuart Smalley of SNL). The USA could see some very irrational thinking, itself, on the part of its leaders were we to be nuked- but I'm not sure irrational terrorists are going to worry about the irrational decisions the US might make reactively- after all, many of those terrorists are willing to die- if they take us with them, in a flaming blaze of glory, will they care what we might do in reaction? I don't think all of them will. I think some of them might do whatever they can, however it might enrage us, and then take the consequences as part of the great battle against the US, and if they are all wiped out in the aftermath, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that at least they stood up to the evil Satan of the US. I think the only way you can work against folks like that is lessen the perception that you are fighting them, in any way you can (to diminish their base of recruits) and work like hell on defense. Not sure how successful that will be, but it beats the other alternatives- imo, of course.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (134468)	5/26/2004 4:05:09 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<It might be fun to conduct a nuclear bomb attack on the USA, but strategically, it would not achieve the goal of getting them out of Saudi Arabia, Israel etc and retreating to the USA. It would cause the USA to go bananas. It would be a big mistake.>> My guess is that something bad would then happen elsewhere. Unilaterally if need be, because there would be no time for UN debates before trying to prevent the next cities destruction. That is what we have tried to prove to nations leaders via Afghanistan and Iraq. And if we have convinced them , and stay the course, then terrorists will be most unwelcome in those lands. However, beyond the general threats, our specific plans should not be made public because the enemy could employ deceit and trickery to deflect our response. And perhaps cause harm to a friendly country. THe UN must now review their operation and have ideas on the table for various eventualities, because most of their past work will have been in vain if we get into nuclear exchanges. And I think you have already said that they need changes. Sig

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (134468)	5/26/2004 7:11:56 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think they'd be better off with Kerry, who I believe has in person killed and destroyed in Vietnam, so he would easily get back in the saddle if the need arose. I suspect he'd be even more enthusiastically militaristic. Well, as I stated before, if Kerry decided to move his waffling position more to the center (actually, his right) he might well stand a chance of stealing votes from Bush. But he's going to have to have more of a plan than just saying that he would internationalize the effort.. Because Bush has been trying to do the very same thing (despite the voiciferous complaints from the left that he has not). What Bush DID NOT DO, IMO, was to compromise his values and be blackmailed by the French, Germans, and Russians as they continued to pursue their own selfish oil agendas and attempted to cover up their participation in the oil for food corruption. When they CHOSE to protect Saddam over upholding UNSC binding resolutions he told them to "stick it", we'll do it with a coalition of the willing. Kerry frightens me as being a potential pawn of European elitists who will not be independent enough to protect the interests of the US. And those interests are definitely to seek to change the economic and political stagnation that has affected the region over the past 10 years. Bringing it on in Iraq, one soldier or foreigner at a time, is better than enraging the giant. I would prefer this myself, since it would appear, in muslim minds, that "allah" has willed that the militants be rendered strategically ineffective and incapable of attacking the US again in a significant manner. But the militants understand that they have to "prove" that Allah is on their side and that they can be victorious in attacking the US homeland, just as Bush has been victorious in overthrowing muslim regimes... They can't win by fighting a defensive battle when they don't have the state-based resources and sanctuaries that can openly support and finance their operations. So I take any scenario of another attack on the US quite seriously. The militants have their "honor" to restore in the eyes of the muslim world. They have to show they can grievously attack and damage the US. Hawk