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: carranza2 who wrote (155722)	1/9/2005 2:12:35 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I did not suggest we do nothing about terrorism. I suggested that our actions need to be wise and effective -- and what we are doing in Iraq is unwise and entirely ineffective. Our invasion of Iraq has been counterproductive and has squandered our military resources while trashing our reputation as principled world leaders\ and calling into question both our intelligence and our integrity. Opposing the invasion of Iraq and pointing out the very low odds of my personal death at the hands of terrorists does not promote inaction -- but it does promote actions that avoid knee-jerk hysterical reactions like invading Iraq.

To: carranza2 who wrote (155722)	1/9/2005 4:38:09 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Never really got a decent response to the question of why, if this threat is so small, we suffered so many billions in economic damage and, why, if the threat is so small as related to the cost of defending against it, it hasn't been until recently that the stock market came up to pre-9/11 levels [I know, I know, it's impossible to prove to a mathematical certainty that the stock market decline is due only to the effects of 9/11, but if you don't think that a significant if not predominant reason for its decline post-9/11 is terror, then you are being purposefully obtuse.] Do a little thought experiment. Suppose everyone who will die from cause X (I'll choose just lung cancer from a single source, smoking) in the USA in a given year could be brought to one common place where they all died within minutes of each other and the whole thing was given good media coverage. Same event to be repeated next year. How long do you think cause X would continue to be ignored in American life. Now how many cause X's can you think of that surpass terrorism as a deprivation of life and limb in this our noble rational land? And that do so with absolute certainty each and every year. Regarding the stock market, are you trying to argue that this lends legitimacy to fear of terrorism? The stock market can be moved by any number of irrational reactions. I remember a few years back when various Wall Streeters were talking about the soon coming Dow 20K, and Dow 50K being not so far into the 21st Century. Rationality in leveraged financial situations is hardly to be expected.