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: Cogito who wrote (84785)	9/16/2008 1:58:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541490

Since I disagree with the policy, I find it especially painful to see the FTTSWDHTFTH idea applied in a place where "they" never were in the first place. I don't have an opinion on the policy other than I don't think that it's not an unreasonable approach. I can easily reason it through. That's not the same thing as endorsing it, merely finding it understandable and rational. I don't think it is something that would have occurred to me but I can see why it occurred to Bush and co. If you're president of a country that has just taken a monster hit, that thought itself immune to such hits, is shaken to its core, and that is at risk of going down the tubes from shock and fear, you're going to resolve to not allow another hit, no matter what that takes. You believe that the people expect protection from you above all else. And though I know you love to discuss every point in an argument separately I have no unresolved questions pending. Happy to address a new question. So you reorganize all domestic national security functions into this monster Dept of Homeland Security to have a clear chain of command. That's Part A. But you know the department can't absolutely stop the terrorists. It's just not feasible. So what else can you do to avoid stress on your leaky borders? One thing you can do is utilize your awesome military to "clear the swamps" while keeping the rest of them busy watching their asses. That's Part B. I don't think that's altogether unreasonable. Not necessarily optimal, but not altogether unreasonable. Since I don't have any better way to meet his objective (not mine, I advocated the stiff upper lip approach.) of zero further attacks The notion of a deterrent factor is an illusion. I don't find the notion of deterrent in that. How do you see it as deterrent? I find it especially painful to see the FTTSWDHTFTH idea applied in a place where "they" never were in the first place. Depends on how you define "they." This is the same differentiation or lack of same that showed up in Palin's message to the departing troops. If you think of "they" as jihadis and their support system, then "they" were and are all over the ME. If you think of "they" as the criminals who attacked us, no so much.