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: i-node who wrote (199201)	8/31/2004 5:53:14 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574326

"A nuclear device detonated in Times Square isn't beyond the realm of possibility." No it is not. Nor has that possibility been decreased. In fact, that probability might actually been higher now than it was before Iraq. Many Arab countries are majorly pissed and some Europeans are making noises about unifying and creating their own nuclear reserves as a counter-weight to an increasingly unpredictable US. And that is something we didn't have before...

To: i-node who wrote (199201)	8/31/2004 6:42:27 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574326

David, This is the most uninformed thing I've ever seen you post here -- and I don't say it lightly. I think you missed his point. He's acknowledging that the war on terror is first and foremost on everyone's mind. And since Kerry is a politician, he has to market himself to this sort of audience. It's hard to fight a war via legislation, which is why Bush has a leg up on Kerry in that aspect. That's why Kerry has to sell himself on his Vietnam experience, because it's all he's got as a counter. His side note on not believing people are in grave danger ("Is there any other kind?") is just his personal belief. That's not a fault of his youth, since like you noticed, even JF thinks the same way. Rather, it's just a reflection of his unique world view. But going back to why Kerry is running on his Vietnam experience instead of his Senate record, I think that's more evidence that Bush will win in November. Why? Because he's defining this political game, whether you like it or not. Obviously the Moore-heads don't, but boo hoo for them. ;-) Tenchusatsu

To: i-node who wrote (199201)	8/31/2004 11:50:26 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574326

>Z, that's silly. There have been major votes, like Kerry's vote against the Gulf War, that crystalize his position, and just as "sound-bitable" as anything Bush has done. Yes, there are unimportant votes, but these can be safely ignored. Maybe they crystalize his position, maybe they don't... people do vote for and against bills based on technicalities... those are tough to explain! >This is the most uninformed thing I've ever seen you post here -- and I don't say it lightly. You and Fowler are both speaking idiotically on this. To suggest that people ARE NOT in grave danger (even though Bush has greatly reduced that danger) is simply ignorant. A nuclear device detonated in Times Square isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Even if it is 1/10000th of 1 percent over any given unit of time (a year), the expected loss is staggering. I've posted it before (quite a while ago and a few minutes ago)... I don't see the chances of that happening as being very high, and I don't see the entire country being in a constant state of fear and vigil as helpful to the situation, at all! Having said that, we need to do something... spending trillions to turn dictatorships into failed-states ain't it. -Z

To: i-node who wrote (199201)	8/31/2004 11:55:24 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574326

This is the most uninformed thing I've ever seen you post here -- and I don't say it lightly. You and Fowler are both speaking idiotically on this. To suggest that people ARE NOT in grave danger (even though Bush has greatly reduced that danger) is simply ignorant. A nuclear device detonated in Times Square isn't beyond the realm of possibility. Even if it is 1/10000th of 1 percent over any given unit of time (a year), the expected loss is staggering. What's changed? Since WW II, we have been told by our leaders that we are under threat from attack.....especially nukes. A nuke in Times Square is no scarier that an armada of missiles flying over our borders. Increasingly, I believe that American leaders, particularly those of the GOP persuasion, use the potential of an attack to promote their particular agenda. When the Soviet Union was still intact, the threat was nuclear missiles. During Clinton and with the collapse of the USSR, the fear of attack declined measurably. And then on 9/11 we were attacked not by nuclear missiles nor by a nuke in a suitcase but by a method that until then had been imagined only by a Hollywood producer. And all the money we had spent on defense......the trillions over 50 years....all the elaborate preparation.....bases, secret headquarters, stealth fighters....all the worrying and fear.....generation after generation........was all for naught. The attack finally came and we were not ready nor are we ready now. I am fairly certain that the next attack will not be a nuclear devise in Times Square nor will it be a nuclear missile nor will it be a plane flying into the WTC. I don't know how it will come but I know one thing for certain.........starting pre emptive wars in the ME will not spare us nor prevent it. Its time for a change!