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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (14589)	6/10/2002 9:22:31 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 21057

In the past, the United States has viewed surprise or "sneak" attacks as dishonorable, the kind of thing inflicted on the American people, not initiated by them, analysts have noted. The problem is not simply in the "rightness or wrongness" of a surprise attack. A surprise attack precludes, almost by definition, any serious debate over the justification for an attack, and essentially allows the security bureaucracy to declare war purely of its own volition. That seems a bit dangerous for me. Then there's the problem of copy cats. If it's OK for us to strike first based on suspicions, then it's OK for one of the 'Stans to do it to another of the 'Stans or Uganda and Zaire or whatever. I think it's pretty generally understood that what's good for us is no good for others. WMD, for example...