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: Lane3 who wrote (84879)	9/16/2008 6:42:14 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541504

>>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.<< Karen - I think there was one too many negatives in that first sentence. ;-) I can see the logic of the policy, too. I just don't think it holds water as a policy. It's far too simplistic. The issues surrounding terrorism are not simple. I think that slogan, which is really what it is, has led to faulty thinking and poor policy decisions. >> 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.<< Hard to figure out why anyone would have thought we were immune to such hits, given that the WTC had already been bombed once before. I remember it well, because I was in lower Manhattan that day. As many of us will recall, the people responsible for that bombing were found and brought to justice. Unlike those responsible for 9/11. I can certainly see how a President might feel that the people expect protection. Since it is completely impossible to guarantee that there will never be another attack, however, I don't think promising that is wise. And I really don't think that using that promise as an excuse to start unnecessary wars is wise. (Yes, I know you're not arguing that it is or was. I mention it only because I think a discussion about the application of a policy is germane to the discussion of whether or not the policy seems logical. Many things appear to make sense until you apply them to the real world.) >>I don't find the notion of deterrent in that. How do you see it as deterrent? << I don't see it as a deterrent. Others on this thread have said that it is. I was disagreeing with them. - Allen