Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tekboy who wrote (36504)	8/8/2002 11:47:57 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) of 281500

tb, I think there is a difference in containing a nation-state such as the Soviets or China under the Maoists and Saddam or supra-national terrorists. The MAD policy works on a traditional nation-state. Not sure that it works with terrorists or Saddam. Another point is that re-active wars have been the only morally justifiable type for democratic entities. But if a rogue state or terrorist organization were to acquire WMD capable of destroying large populations, can we afford to be re-active? One counterpoint is that Saddam may only use WMD as a defensive measure. He has to know that even if we didn't nuke him for some WMD attack, the Israeli's would. Another issue is that the Libyans, Syrians, N Koreans and Iraqi's have all aided terrorist groups. At some point we need to make that so costly as to tie the terrorists behavior to their nation states survival. Is Iraq the example? Not sure that I have any answers :-) Its kind of like being put in a F-16 cockpit on Sept 11th and seeing the 1st plane headed to the WTC. Do you shoot it down? In hind sight - yes. At the time - you would have waited until it was too late (and you would never have expected the 2nd plane). John

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next