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: KonKilo who wrote (23464)	7/9/2006 6:40:33 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540786

"...I suspect I will now need to spend the next week defending particulars." <GGG> I could do that, but I won't. First, a point of agreement. I agree with you that the USS Cole was a valid military target, as are other military targets inside the boarders of mideastern states. Attacks on those targets are acts of war, and not terrorism. As to the rest of your "outline," suffice it to say I'm really glad that people who think like you aren't in positions to make the decisions. Your way, making sure of who did the 9-11 acts and why, and then trying to pacify them, is a bit too pacifist for my way of thinking. I also think it would invite even more attacks as others, with even more "reasons" tried to "express" themselves and get a hearing for even more concessions. As you pacify one group, you encourage a dozen others. A foreign policy like you outline would quickly destroy the country, IMO. But, maybe small agressive countries would "like" us more. Now that I have an understanding of your POV, I can put your posts into better context. So, thanks for posting that.

To: KonKilo who wrote (23464)	7/25/2006 8:47:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540786

I would start with trying to get a better definition of terror. The attack on the USS Cole, no matter how horrendous, would not make it in my definition. A US warship in a foreign port is a target for asymmetric warfare. Institute protection measures at ship level. I can agree with that. Similarly the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would not be considered terrorism by most people's definition. That doesn't mean we didn't or shouldn't go after the Japanese hard after the attack. The attack was an act of war.