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: LindyBill who wrote (133588)	8/21/2005 3:17:00 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793623

So, we don't use force, and we do what? No Bill, it's not "either/or." We should use deadly force. We should use force that's effective and we should use force to the extent it's necessary to further our goals. Attacking an Afghani nation that openly supported, sheltered and encouraged a group of terrorists that had aggressively attacked America was a proper use of force. Attacking Al Queda camps in nations that would not, or could not, destroy them was a proper use of force. Setting parameters of engagement that third world nations understand with respect to when and how we will respond to their complicity in terrorist actions against this country is a proper use of force. Using extensive and aggressive law enforcement techniques against terrorists is a proper use of force. Attacking any nation that acts to attack America is a proper use of force. Attempting to use conventional military force to "remake the middle east," however, and in the process attempt to change the culture and religious beliefs of ancient societies is not a proper or effective use of force. Ed