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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (97348)	1/28/2005 1:41:32 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793742

I don't see how you can compare Al Qaeda with the German Wehrmacht. How many divisions does Al Qaeda have? How many tanks, submarines, destroyers, airplanes? In what sense can the Al Qaeda wolf be any more at the door than it is now? They have the power to attack us at any minute, using asymmetrical weapons -- conventional explosives, "dirty bombs", chemical weapons, possibly even a nuclear bomb or two or three or several. Does anybody who matters not understand this? And what, pray tell, causes you to sneer about complacency? I gather that you are casting yourself in the role of Churchill, far-sighted but pooh-poohed. On what basis?

To: carranza2 who wrote (97348)	1/28/2005 2:03:56 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793742

This is the logical flaw in your thinking--the fact that we may be facing a compelling threat is not necessarily recognized by the bulk of the populace What you are disagreeing about is not my assertion about the validity of the draft construct but whether or not there is a disconnect between people's perceptions and the degree of threat. Until the wolf is at the door, it is unlikely that the great bulk of the people will be very concerned about imminent threats. Indeed, at such time the wolf is at the door, in other words, when the threat becomes existential, then people will respond as I asserted. Meanwhile, you're talking about conscripting people for your crusade, not theirs. This is a free country and we each get to decide what's compelling and what's not. I appreciate that there can be a time lag in acknowledging the seriousness of a threat and that there is some risk in that. But when a threat is really existential, no amount of static can obscure that from at least enough people to man an army. The alternative risk is that the disconnect is not static but foolishness or bad faith on the part of the powers that be. I think that in a free country it's better to risk the delay than sacrifice young people for less than compelling reasons, as acknowledged by them.