Posted by tecwrg on 12/18/2014 11:22:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/18/2014 11:11:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/18/2014 10:40:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/18/2014 10:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 12/18/2014 10:04:00 AM (view original):
Because "do nothing" is usually not a good deterrent against future actions.
A) What action?
B) what would be a good deterent?
A) Um, future threats?
B) I've already said that I don't know. Something more than "do nothing" and less than "thernonuclear war".
A) we face threats all the time. We don't even know how real this threat is.
B) again, you clearly have no idea if do nothing is or isn't the best answer.
A) It doesn't matter how "real this threat is". Maybe the threats are just smoke. POTUS thinks they are. But they were enough to cause decisions to be made that are resulting in negative financial impact to a number of entities (Sony, and the movie theaters).
B) Are you advocating "ignore it and hope it doesn't happen again"?
A) it absolutely does matter how real the threat is. And you aren't allowed to state your opinion on this, you aren't an expert.
B) I'm saying that, of the realistic options we have, do nothing* may be the best.
*when I say "do nothing," I mean publicly. Don't make threats, draw "lines in the sand," promise to react, etc. I'm sure, behind the scenes, there are, as always, a ton of things going on.