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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dougjn who wrote (14013)	8/22/1998 12:50:00 AM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Karl von Clausewitz, Prussian General, wrote "On War"; expounding the concept of total war (which used to be the case in Europe until the late middle ages, I think, when a code was worked out whereupon non-combatants were first recognized, and allowed to continue tilling fields and in general taking care of things so that the boys could spend all their valuable time land grabbing, killing Jews, raping grandmothers and various other brutality) which meant, once again a total destruction of the enemy, root and branch (see Sherman's March). Famous for having said "War is a continuation of diplomacy by other means." ps- cut the prez some slack; I, personally, have had sex with those I shouldn't, and would certainly have lied about it, repeatedly, if questioned, which thank G-d I never was and let's face it, who here reading these words could say different?? So don't say he shoulda 'fessed up 7 months ago, 'cause nobody falls on their sword who doesn't absolutely have to, which is at least obvious. And don't forget our quiet Monica who at this point in her life opens her mouth ONLY after a signed sealed delivered deal with a Whitewater prosecutor (although what a savings and loan or Vince Foster for that matter has to do with an Arkansas S&L is anybody's guess) and then delivers up a dirty dress hidden for months at Mom's what kind of person does this??? So while it is true that Clinton's got feet of clay, we're not talking a crew of burglars in the White House basement, millions in hush money or taking an enemies list to the FBI/CIA/IRS. Let's have some perspective PLEASE it's lying about a G.D. blowjob and who wouldn't do that? And don't lie about that; at least not to yourself. Rant over! Spread spectrum, anyone?

To: dougjn who wrote (14013)	8/22/1998 1:09:00 AM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Thanks re: Clausewitz (though I'd like to learn more). And re: Clinton, I agree. Though I sense we are a declining minority. Its not cause I'm such a super demo partisan. I'm not. It's because I entirely agree with you. Lying about his private behavior in a situation where it shouldn't have been demanded under oath doesn't bother me much at all. But it sure does seem to bother others. Seems to me its all really a cover for the successful feminist reinvigoration of Puritan American sexual morality. Let's ask this. What if Clinton were asked if he had ever had a homosexual experience in his life in Paula Jones lawsuit for some reason. Should he have to answer that, knowing it would shortly become very, very public, if the answer would hurt him. (That particular answer wouldn't hurt me, but I can recognize that the prejudicial effect of the public disclosure of that would be great, and very unfair.) Now if it were a serious criminal trial, and the testimony was unquestionably relevant, somehow, that would be different. As it would in Clinton's case re: question's about adulterous affairs. It would even be different in the old days of "fault" based divorce trials, where testimony about adultery was central, rightly or wrongly, to the outcome of the trial. But in the Jones lawsuit???? There should be a "rape shield law" for men, seems to me. Aheeemmmm. I mean for those, of whatever gender, who are accused of sexual harassment. How is it that a prior criminal conviction for theft is inadmissible in a trial for a particular current instance of theft; but prior consensual cheating is fully admissible in a lawsuit alleging unwanted sexual pressures and advances? Doug

To: dougjn who wrote (14013)	8/22/1998 9:15:00 AM
From: limtex	Respond to of 152472

dougjn - Further analysis of the position was rendered redundant yesterday since Mr Bin Laden declared yet again that he was at war with the United States. Clausewitz is though a must read and is the military text book in use in staff collleges all over the world and has been for over 150 years. Here are some of the salient definitions:- "2. Definition War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will. 3. Maximum Use of Force Kind hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm and defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be expeosed: war is such a dangerous business that mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatile with the simultaneous use of the intellect. If one side uses force without compunction, undeterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. ......... 5. The Maximum Exertion of Strength If you want to overcome your enemy you must match your effort against his power of resistance, which can be expressed as the product of two inseparable factors, viz. the total means at his disposal and the strength of his will. ......." From the this the analysis is pretty clear but would appear to be: 1. Our opponent is requires us to submit to his will. 2. We have not so far submitted to his will. 3. Our opponent is currently waging war on us. 4. We have not matched his use of force nor have we exceeded it. 5. Our opponent will increase the force (and thereby the bloodshed) that he uses against us. This is why our opponent(s) is/(are) trying as hard as possible to obtain chemical/biological (in binary form) weapons and from this you can deduce exactly what our opponent will do with them as soon as he can. A weapon such as this deployed in a major population center will cause 100,000 plus deaths and can be carried in a suitcase. The derived consequences are very simple - we give in and face as well as a lot of other really unpleasant things being done to us being forced to abandon our civilization in favour of another one. Get a copy of Clausewitz... it is hard and disturbing reading. Regards, L