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: carranza2 who wrote (42197)	9/5/2002 3:22:16 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Playing the devils advocate (and I am no bleeding heart liberal :-) - is attacking Iraq the best use of our limited resources? With a finite base - maybe we are better off taking on small groups in tactical actions - Philipines, Chechens, west China, Bekka Valley etc. But if we have KNOWLEDGE of a credible threat - what should we do? IMO -> attack It must be credible, but to whom? People have cited the CMC Kennedy level talk at the UN, but go back and check primary sources - many people in other countries questioned the U2 photos. Just as many people will question anything this administration offers as evidence. The crucial question (as with the CMC)is can this administration convince the bi-partisan leadership of the appropriate Senate committees. If this happens - its real and we should support it. No way that Daschle and Levin etc will agree to a 'saving face' attack by a Republican President. What would keep the Democratic leadership from playing politics on the issue? Lets be realistic - they are as just as patriotic as Republicans. If you are a complete cynic - imagine blocking the administration publically - and then we suffer another 9/11 or worse a 9/11 with a WMD. Nobody at that level is that dumb. John

To: carranza2 who wrote (42197)	9/5/2002 11:08:14 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That terrorist attacks are going to stop if we don't attack Iraq? Terrorist attacks won't stop if we do attack Iraq. The US attacked Afghanistan and now less than a year later terrorist attacks are on the increase in Afghanistan. The military approach to terror is ineffective. Israel has been using an iron hand against terror for decades and it has proven not to work (a month without a suicide bombing is not success). You can bet they will regroup and attack with a different tactic if their current methodology has been thwarted. If the US governments wants to reduce terrorist attacks against the US then moving Israel back to its 1967 borders would be a lot more effective and a lot cheaper. Zeuspaul