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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29964)	7/24/2005 5:34:04 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361717

I'm not Woody Allen! mm.dfilm.com

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29964)	7/24/2005 5:34:55 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361717

Bushies are dead wrong about thinking the war on terror can be fought with bombs and conventional military warfare. When has that ever worked? The only case where it might have worked to a degree was in taking out the Taliban. No other government in the world runs Jihadist terrorist operastions, though I'm sure some of them, like Syria, Yemen and Iran, look the other way. Remember when the Bushies mocked Kerry for saying the war on terror was primarily a LE and intelligence operation? Kerry was 100% right and they were wrong. Proof is the occupation of Iraq which has only created more terrorism. Much more.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29964)	7/24/2005 5:40:27 PM
From: Sawdusty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361717

"As for the article about a proposed nuclear attack on Iran - I think that should only happen if Iran was really the ones that did the attack on the US. We have talked before about what to do if the culprit cannot be found. I am still in favor of a kind of group punishment in such a case - for example cruise missile attacks, or even a tactical nuke attack on Mecca/Medina." I suppose if the attacker was from Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia or any other country that may have a grudge, we'll just call it collateral damage? Or is that the cost of spreading freedom? I think your thinking is dangerous.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29964)	7/24/2005 5:57:58 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361717

That is insane.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29964)	7/24/2005 6:36:43 PM
From: denizen48	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361717

1. President Bush is not qualified intellectually to make such a decision for the world. Moreover, a guy who believes in the last days should be the last guy allowed to pull the nuclear trigger. 2. Nuclear deterrance was a Cold War playbook. What are the new rules? RAND was formed, I believe, to figure out all the nuances in our stand-off with Russia. Those were fine American minds. Now we have Neo-Cons telling us Iraq would be a cake walk, i.e. now we have people running our country who are loyal to another flag. 3. Is there a "really" really there anymore in our government?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (29964)	7/25/2005 1:09:08 AM
From: geode00	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 361717

I'm sure the Iraqis we've gone to liberate will be delighted to hear such things. Geez Loueeze, when will we ever learn. Elevating a tiny group of militants, suiciders, criminals, murderers, angry people to the status of holy warriors or participants in WWIII or whatever is unbelievably foolish. Terrorism is first and foremost about PR. It's about being taken seriously. It's about, literally, getting the most bang for the buck. What we've done after 911 is unbelievably foolish. Bringing in Mecca and Medina into the equation is hyperventilation at its worst. 1. Not all terrorists are religious jihadists or even militants. Some are just fed up. Some are easily swayed by propaganda. Some are confused. Some are paid. Some are depressed. Some want revenge. 2. Terrorists exist because their tactics work. Their tactics works when we react badly to them. 3. There were 300+ terrorist attacks in the 23 years up to the invasion of Iraq. There were over 500 in the last 18 months in Iraq alone. The idea of taking out Mecca and Medina leads to, what, 10,000 attacks in the future? It's absurd, it's ridiculous and it's ineffective. 4. What OBL said about us has turned out to be true. Christian Crusaders and Jewish Neocons have taken over and are occupying a Muslim country. Gee. That's enough PR for OBL to dine out on for generations. Christian Crusaders and Jewish Neocons now threatening to take out Mecca and Medina? He can raise funds and an army of terrorists on that. 5. I do not want the USA to be turned into Israel. Israel has been fighting the same war for three generations. That sucks for Israel and its neighbors. Obviously what they've been doing does not work. It's a stalemate but nothing more. As the demographic situation becomes more lopsided, what happens next? 6. If all non ME troops and corporations simply got up and left the ME AND we no longer took sides on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, would terrorism outside of the ME stop? If the answer to that is yes, then there is obviously a solution to this problem that does not include escalation and decades of war. 7. If we're so worried about a nuclear attack, why aren't we going after all the loose Russia nuclear materials? Why aren't we checking all the containers and shipments into US ports? Are we serious or are we not?