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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HG who wrote (3275)	10/7/2001 7:20:20 PM
From: MSI	Respond to of 281500

Excellent piece. But with a flawed conclusion: "The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. " Our administration's assumption is that we have the financial power, military self-confidence, and diplomatic ability to incrementally, progressively, and continuously defeat emerging terrorists for years. Our administration is run by proven warriors (Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney), with a massive mandate, so their restraint can be assumed to be well-informed. If so, and if we (and they) are lucky, the enemy will be convinced to look towards more productive pursuits, as the costs and certainty of combat becomes clear, the benefits of peace seep into habits of the people, and their confidence in influencing their leaders emerges. There's risk in winning either way. However, Piekoff seems to call for an approach that would set a precedant for apocalyptic events to solve difficult problems, in a future where nuclear weapons are the least destructive of potential WMDs.