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: carranza2 who wrote (69827)	2/13/2003 10:19:51 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) of 281500

...the new threats are not in the nature of tanks and armies being mobilized--things which can be seen at a distance and for which we can prepare. The new threats are more insidious and slippery. The damage they can do can be both substantial and immediate. Don't expect revenge-driven whack-jobs like Saddam or AQ to warn. Yes, the new threats are not at all like the old threats posed by conventional military force in the hands of potentially hostile nations. That’s why the new threats require new tactics for an effective response. We cannot stop terrorists by invading nations. By the time we get there, the terrorists will be long gone, and settled somewhere else. We end up spending our force and our resources on those who do not threaten us, and in the process strengthening the position of those who do. The sad reality is that the terrorists do not really need state support, and the only effective way to eliminate them is to hunt them down one at a time, quietly and secretly, and kill them. We are not fighting a nation or a collection of nations; we are fighting a group of individuals, spread out in many places. The tactics and equipment that are used in wars against nations will not serve us.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next