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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (7159)	12/17/2005 11:28:41 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540836

These are very small groups of people, and they are not likely to be able to invade or take over any bits of our land. What we are dealing with is terrorism, and we have always dealt with terrorism. Elevating it to a "war" allowed people to get emotional and fuzzy headed about the whole thing, and further allowed Bush to start a real war, an honest to goodness we've invaded the soil of someone else kind of war, complete with an occupation, because of a simple terrorist action. Many of the people here see a problem with that.

To: michael97123 who wrote (7159)	12/17/2005 2:04:00 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540836

We've been dealing with terrorists for thirty-plus years. Get used to it. We don't dignify the acts of a few maniacs with the title of 'war' and are not at war in any meaningful sense. The action against the Taliban, who ran Afghanistan, was a war. Not a big one and it should have had no notable repercussions at home or executive expansions. This, like many of the new actions and proposed laws, is simply an attempt by the executives (here as well as in the US) to abrogate more powers: basically they do as they likes without scrutiny or accountability in the name of 'war', because it's more convenient for them and they have more power that way. And virtually no politician has ever turned down the chance of more power, that's not what they do; those who claim not to want it are generally lying. Nor - until very recently - was there any agenda to suppress the freedom of everyone else, allegedly in the name of uncovering and countering terrorism (although it seems to have discovered remarkably little). Again: the actions of a few individual maniacs, even a few hundred organised maniacs, are not "war" and should not merit that title, still less necessitate the abandonment of our liberties and the ceding of our rights to political or police whim. Clear?