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.

Pastimes : The Barrett Bucket -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (413)	7/21/2005 3:38:58 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1233

Ionesco, Yes, you have stated standard dictionary definitions and then put your own unique spin on them. There are better, more defining words to use for what it is I think you are trying to convey and with which sentiment I and most others in the civilized world will still disagree. In short, there is nothing good or positive to say about random terrorist attacks on hapless citizens anywhere. And please do not bring in the innocents in Iraq, Japan, and elsewhere, or at other times. There are necessary defenses and there vicious offenses and vast differences between the two actions. - Holly

To: epicure who wrote (413)	7/21/2005 4:07:09 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1233

If a pilot is seated in a stealth F-119 and drops a bomb from 20 miles out and sits back in relative safety from conventional anti-aircraft fire with a computer-operated laser designator to hit a target (and potentially create a large collateral impact on nearby civilians), is it a "brave" act? luminoxshop.com Iraqi radar operators scoured the moonless skies for the first indication of approaching aircraft, but they saw nothing. "We haven't heard any planes yet," noted Shaw, wondering aloud whether Boeing B-52 bombers flew so high they couldn't be heard... the F-117 was able to get 90 percent closer to ground-based search radars, and 98 percent closer to airborne radars, before being detected. Is the brigadier general that plans and directs the strategic mission from a well-sheltered and fortified area behind the lines "brave"? Is the Commander in Chief sitting on a ranch in Texas giving the staff generals orders by cell phone from the deck of his pool "brave"? In a modern air war scenario, the thing that seems "brave" and self-sacrificing is the munitions used. The whole point of air superiority is to do what you choose over the theatre with a minimum chance of harm to yourself. We sacrifice equipment instead of people. Perhaps we are using archaic terms for these conditions. It's a little like discussions of hygiene with people of the middle ages. I personally wouldn't really want my soldiers to have to be brave. To do so, puts them at risk. I think the point is that when we or our people do it, it is useful and emotionally satisfying to have it perceived as chivalrous and "brave" . When someone does it to us, though, it is easier to accept if we label it "terrorism" and "cowardly". These terms seem to mean little in an Agincourt-like battle and outside of the age of chivalry they just confuse the issue: Why do people choose America to attack? Why not Canada or Australia? Or Iceland? It would be smart to look at our relationships with the House of Saud and Israel. We should be circumspect about entangling alliances... usinfo.state.gov GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS (1796) Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.