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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (758697)	2/5/2007 6:18:12 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

First and foremost, if you read sarcasm in my post, it was not intended. I am trying to have a dialogue about how it is possible to address the danger you see.... You posted about a videotape shown in a mosque. I referred to it and wondered what kind of response, if any at all, would be appropriate in your view to the airing of such a tape. I should not have used the term "round up"...a poor choice of words. But what if any response is deserved of the airing of such a tape? I hope I don't sound somehow crazy, but equating Pepsi and Israel doesn't sound as bad as a lot of other stuff that has been said over the years about U.S. support for Israel... I know you are tired of me talking about State action, but if we do not involve State to State action, the ability to deal with the islamic factions you see becomes problamatic. The danger you see if mobile and we often need the support of States to have a meaningful effect on the evil. If we ignore the implications of dealing with States (diplomacy in all its forms), we run the risk of conflict with those states. Are we capable and equipped for such? Do you think States that are ignored or insulted by us will not respond with whatever economic or other tools they have at hand..(e.g., oil boycott,). We are told that Bin Laden is in the northwest region of Pakistan, but Pakistan won't let us go get him. Are you suggesting we ignore Pakistan's prohibition and move in? Mr. Bush doesn't seem willing to do that. Saudi Arabia? What should we do about their backing of the Taliban and other islamic factions over the years? Cut off diplomatic relations? Isn't the experience of Iraq enough to show us that our muscle needs to be tempered at times? That we need to try to achieve goals by other than simple force? I am not saying force does not have its place. Of course, it does....but the old hearts and minds argument still rings true. Look at Afghanistan. Are we willing there? If not, why not. Radical Islam is a danger. I don't subscribe to the belief of sume that all muslims are a danger to us, or even muslims who are unhappy with our policy in Iraq are necessarily a danger to us, or even that Muslims that spout rhetoric are per se a danger to us. That is a big, wide group. And their inspiration for making such statements may not be hope for our destruction, but frustration for our direction, or lack thereof. Using a club in such situations could do much more damage than other measures.... In reading your comments I just don't know how to sort between the wheat and the chaff other than to follow your plan of nuking them all and letting God sort them out. That seems a bit drastic, even in these perilous times.