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: LindyBill who wrote (35445)	7/31/2002 11:51:21 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My reading of this thread over the last few months, along with reading the media, has me scratching my head and wondering if we have lost sight of our original goal from last year. Bill, I'm not at all certain just how to reply to this post. You seem to be arguing that if we don't agree with you, we will, in some sense, be responsible for future terrorist attacks on the US. I hope I am wrong. I will be happy to offer my own view, in a very short way. I agree with moves to reduce the threat from Al Qaeda (I say "reduce" because I don't think it's possible to eliminate them). Second, I am convinced that the bin Laden folk wish for us to engage in some sort of war with Islam. To the degree we invade other Muslim countries without clear signals of threat to us, we are actually furthering the bin Laden argument. I don't think that's wise foreign policy. Third, I think it's possible to do something about Al Qaeda in countries which are friendly to us or, more simply put, not hostile. But, fourth, that becomes much more difficult in Iran, Iraq, Syria, et al. That, for me, is the difficult point. But I do think one needs to think both sides of the coin. Invasion pushes us closer to clash of civilizations; not doing anything may endanger us to terrorist threats. At least that's where my thoughts are as of this moment.