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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (148259)	9/29/2002 9:54:54 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Self-defense is a well established concept. Pre-emptive attack is hard to justify as self-defense -- the threshold is "immanent threat". At least since World War II, we maintained a defensive policy that said we would NOT attack first but would launch a massive counter-attack if somebody attacks us. When armies are mobilized, there is an advantage to the party that strikes first. To create a world at relative peace, we wisely adopted a policy of no first strike even though for decades both our forces and the Soviet forces were in a constant state of mobilzation. Adopting a first strike policy is the most significant change in foreign policy since WWII -- and it opens up a wide range of issues relating to how peace and order is maintained throughout the world.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (148259)	9/30/2002 6:32:12 AM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 164684

According to researchers at the Library of Congress, the United States has never in its 213-year history launched a preemptive attack against another country. i guess they don't count the 78 days of relentless US-led NATO bombing over kosovo because that was not "pre-emptive". a pre-emptive attack implies an anticipated threat. the serbs made no express or implied threat to america or our allies. it was simply a brutal act of aggression thanks to that wretched jewish virago, madeline albright. kosovo must not fit their definition of pre-emptive, which is surprising, because an attack on iraq would be similar. it would not fit the definition of pre-emptive either because saddam has not threatened the united states in any way.