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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (193446)	7/27/2006 10:13:56 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Do you always let the other guy define the terms that describe the conflict? Yep.. Because words, when combined with action, mean something. I just reserve the right to pick the battlefield of my choosing, and the strategy for persuading them either to withdraw their threats and make peace/restitution, or utterly defeat them to the point where they cannot pose a further threat. The manner in which you discount their intent, or willingness to wage a war against the US is tantamount to criminal negligence. Because you have NO IDEA how they will attack us next. And your post-facto apologies about "I just did not expect that they had that capabiity" will mean nothing to the dead or their survivors. The enemy might be the equivalent of "clubs versus guns" in your eyes, but most of the rest of us know that technology/chemistry/biology has provided them some remarkable military equalizers.. if they can only figure out how to obtain the formula for them, produce them, and deploy them. They have certainly shown both the intent, and operationally planning for "ratcheting up" their capabilities to wage their war. Hawk