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: SirRealist who wrote (37080)	8/11/2002 6:09:50 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

carp & limburger sammich How did you know what I had for lunch? (gatta clean out that fridge!) sane pacifists as Mao Zedong, Stalin They were heads of two large countries, and we were lucky enough to be able to contain them without a Nuclear war. We are going to have a hard time staying that lucky. We have a whole raft of small countries coming up that will want Atomic Bombs, and they are getting easier and easier to make. If you want to project out twenty to fifty years, any paranoid psychopath running a small country is going to be able to get one. So we not only need a policy for handling Saddam, we need it to cover this situation as it comes up again and again. Are we going to stop them when it gets like it is with Saddam, or are we going to set on our hands? This problem is not going to go away. The other decision we have to make is the immediate one of settling the terrorist problem. Are we going to stop now, and just try to stomp on each little terrorist group as they come up, or will be try to change the equation with the Islamic countries so that we don't have the support available for terrorists? If we take the first approach, and temporize with these countries, the problem is only going to get worse, IMO.

To: SirRealist who wrote (37080)	8/11/2002 6:25:01 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

so long as it's done Constitutionally. Since the War Powers Act permits the President to engage US forces in military action for 90 days without requiring the approval of Congress. And Congress has already issued an "authorization to use force" "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.' Saddam is harboring Al-Qaeda insurgents RIGHT NOW, primarily Kurds, who were formerly based in Afghanistan. Thus, this falls within the mandate of the congressional authorization issued as a result of 9/11. Case closed. And what you call a "tragedy", most Americans call a deliberate attack upon our entire nation. Funny how so many folks spend tremendous "diminishing" the events of that day, as if it were some kind of "act of god" or something. It was a brutal attack that killed thousands of CIVILIANS, and resulted in TRILLIONS $$$$ of economic damage. What it will require for some folks to stop swimming in denial over the simple fact that THEY DECLARED WAR UPON US FIRST, lord only knows.... What is that fine line YOU draw between "tragedy" and sneak attack and terrorism?? I'd really like to know. Hawk