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: Metacomet who wrote (13196)	1/1/2007 11:05:41 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217688

TJ is not talking about conventional war, which is not wineable. He's talking about non-conventional war. It won't help a country be unvincible in a conventional. And it is exactly because conventional wars became unwineable that we have more and more wars of the unconventional type. Those unconventional war are becoming more and more sophisticated and deadlier. As it happens with the wars of conventional type, it comes to a point where, either one defeat the other or they resot to an agreement to end it. Since people haven;t not even realized that there's a war going on, how can they even consider seating and talk? That points to long war...

To: Metacomet who wrote (13196)	1/1/2007 7:43:28 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217688

metacomet, <<Exactly what war is that?>> i am not in favor of wars, unlike cb and hamoon, but i do concede that there is a war on, full on, and it is a subject matter recently debated on the thread whether 911 was an act of war or simply a crime is not important in that it had political flavoring strong enough to make it a major event determining actions of all for a long long time iraq is now at war because bush & co brought it into the war, for whatever reason, astute or otherwise foolish the details matter not to whether there is a war on, because there is a war on <<And is the US necessarily a combatant even if there is?>> ... perhaps not, and perhaps not astute, but the fact remains, the usa is a combatant. <<The only way that Bush is correct that there is a war on is because he is unilaterally conducting one>> ... let us just say bush enlarged the scope of the war that was already in place, and upped its intensity, wisely or foolishly.