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: Win Smith who wrote (43043)	9/10/2002 1:10:30 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Win, I know the line :-) Its just that I liked the article without looking at the context of his earlier work. And yes I know the paper trail. His opinion, however much you disagree, is valid. I am not as convinced as Safire, but am leaning towards action. Past history tells me that sanctions will not work - and impact the wrong people anyway. However, imagine you are in the White House. I am curious to know how you would advise the President. What you would do if you were the President. We have had a large number of people on this thread spouting war and no-war. No-war is not action - its inaction. What other active repsonse to the attack do you see as valid? As to multi-lateralism, who else is at risk here? We are the target (and maybe London for historical reasons), not the Europeans or others. In Gulf War 1 - European and Asian oil supplies were at risk. They had to act then, now they can point fingers at us and stick their heads in the sand. John

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next