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: cnyndwllr who wrote (134966)	5/31/2004 12:24:11 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My point was that terrorism did not need a state sponsor and, furthermore, that attacking Arab/Muslim states with overwhelming blunt force was counterproductive in the battle against terrorism. Then what would you advise? Economic sanctions? How about an oil for food program to alleviate any potential harm to the innocent civilians? Please.. I'm waiting for ANYONE, including you, to tell us how we're supposed to create change in societies where entire societies are terrorized, brutalized, exploited, and deprived of any ability to even ponder the concept of freedom, let alone the will to fight for it.. And if you think this is not applicable, think about all of those abused women who remain in violent marriages, bound to spouses whom they hate, yet feel utterly incapable of separating themselves from because they are scared of winding up in an even worse situation. Remember Hawk, I conceded the importance of the goal, I conceded the benevolence of the motives and I conceded that great costs were justified IF we could achieve our ends. I have never conceded that it's doable and you've never shown a progression of events or any rational set of assumptions that would indicate it is doable. You're not alone. We didn't know if we would emerge from WWII victorious. And had Hitler and Togo managed to win some decisive victories, rather than suffering some terrible defeats, it's quite possible that we might not have.. But it happened because we strove and fought for our values and refused to accept defeat, even when our battles were hard-fought and victory seemed uncertain. But we never would have been able to achieve victory in that war had we afforded ourselves the convenience of your kind of vaccillation. We know what needs to happen in the Mid-East, even if we're not quite sure of the proper code to the combination lock that will achieve it. But that doesn't mean it's undoable. I certainly dod not accept the premise that Islamic militancy is irreversible and undefeatable. But it's not going to be a cake-walk, nor are we going to wage this war without occasional setbacks or policy revisions. But once again, for all the "heat" I catch from people like yourself, I'm seeing very little "light" that reveals any viable alternative strategies to what Bush is currently proposing right now. Hawk Hawk