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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (443947)	1/2/2009 11:36:08 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576109

What i really dont get is what this crew of ted, bayer, parsons et al would do or not do if it was their town being attacked with rockets? Would they self defend. Ted in an earlier post said he wouldnt. I didn't see ted's remark but I don't find it surprising. And frankly, it is the reason we don't need liberals running our foreign policy. Sometimes, war is necessary to solve problems. And frankly, not only is it sometimes necessary, it is sometimes PREFERABLE to other means. Everyone, from Army Generals to politicians, is fond of saying, "War is a last resort". It just sounds great. But the reality is that a failure to go to war can sometimes be a far greater disaster than doing nothing. The question will always be open whether, had we stayed in Vietnam and won the war, The Killing Fields might have been avoided. There can be no doubt that had we acted sooner in WWII lives would have been saved. And frankly, we'll never know just how many lives were saved by our intervention in Iraq -- although it will be decades -- allowing time for the current crop of "journalists" to move on where some more objective minds can look at the situation. Israel is going to have solve this problem with brute force, that is clear. There are to be no "negotiated" arrangements. You cannot negotiate with Hamas, a terrorist organization who has no interest in peace, nor can you with Iran, its backer. So wouldn't it cost fewer lives to just do what they have to do now and then, hopefully, have a few years of security until the next round of attacks?

To: michael97123 who wrote (443947)	1/2/2009 11:52:40 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576109

What i really dont get is what this crew of ted, bayer, parsons et al would do or not do if it was their town being attacked with rockets? Would they self defend. Ted in an earlier post said he wouldnt. He would gladly sacrifice friend and familily so as not to violate his high moral standards. This ted-dude is a better person than me. More likely he is a flat out liar who would be looking to you for protection in such a case. Oh hell......you call what's happening in S. Israel anywhere close to equivalent to what's happening in Gaza? S. Israel is an excuse.....the excuse the Israelis use to carry out the manifest destiny of Likud. Just as with Bush, Americans are waking up to what's happening in Palestine. Lebanon was a huge wake up call. The Israelis are losing their sainthood very quickly. Your only allies are quickly being reduced to the American neos......they are your brothers now, Michael. How does that feel? And waving the false flag of anti Semitism will no longer do the trick. Sorry.