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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (11979)	11/29/2006 11:12:54 AM
From: foundation	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217840

re: it is certainly a good bet ---------- ... really, the only option that we have left to attempt to maintain our present status... as regards controlling resources and commerce, as well as consuming our present proportion of the world's assets - ... is to turn vast regions of the globe to glass. ... and train to drill oil in HAZMAT suits. I feel about 80% certain that we will. ... which makes me relieved that we didn't reproduce.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (11979)	11/29/2006 12:45:17 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217840

Kill the snake and show the stick. If this is the turn of tide, this doesn't augur well.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (11979)	11/29/2006 11:19:18 PM
From: que seria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217840

Jay: There are Pashtuns and there are Taliban. My impression is that only a fraction of the former are the latter. Since Taliban gave al quaeda a home from which to murder several thousand Americans, and were/are collaborating if not sponsoring al quaeda in its ongoing efforts at mass murder of civilians, the U.S. should do whatever it takes to crush the Taliban. It appears whatever we've been doing hasn't been working. I don't know why, but both Afghanistan's history and religion, and our recent Iraq experience, suggests Afghans' aversion to resident foreign troops is an insuperable barrier to acceptance and success for any gov't we so bluntly sponsor. The U.S., to have any hope of neutralizing Taliban and similar terrorists, must be resolute, clever, and absolutely ruthless in dealing with them. Ideally that means letting them separate themselves from the non-terrorist populace, the better to identify and kill them. Perversely, this may best be accomplished if they come into power after we leave! Continued Afghan success at ousting invaders assumes, given today's weapons, a civilized approach to dealing with the Afghans. At some point, facing the threat or fact of more mass slaughter of U.S. civilians by Taliban-sponsored terrorists, an American president will worry more about intended primary damage on our shores and much less about collateral damage in terror-sponsoring nations. He will switch doctrine and just do what it takes to eliminate a threat coming from a blatant terror-sponsor, such as Afghanistan was (and may again become). Muslims only think they have it bad now in Guantanamo and various foreign soil prisons. Another attack or two in the U.S. and civilian innocents in the sponsoring Muslim nation will be victims on a scale that makes our style of war in Iraq look restrained. Pushed far enough, the U.S. will adopt a Russian level of ruthlessness, using American weapons. The greater the Taliban resurgence to come, and the fewer the U.S. troops in country when it comes, the greater the clustering of high-value targets and the easier a solution to Taliban resurgence will be. Sadly, that will mean perpetrating our own atrocities because "collateral" deaths from U.S. attacks will likely far exceed terrorists' victims in the U.S. There is no surgical way of removing the Islamofacist cancer before it keeps metasticizing across the ocean. We could have avoided feeding it with U.S. troops stationed in and invading Muslim nations (before any attacked us)--and maybe we still could avoid feeding it. I doubt it; I only see a president who can't bring himself to admit he was wrong to invade the only nation among the big 3 in the area that wasn't sponsoring terrorists against the U.S. Then I see an "opposition" party that to a large extent joined in the warmongering, and even today has key members defending the Iraq invasion and ongoing occupation. Bad as the Federal Reserve is, I think the military/terror outlook makes an even stronger case for gold.