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: Ilaine who wrote (48254)	9/30/2002 11:28:50 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have not communicated effectively -- my position is that pre-emption as a doctrine is a major change in policy that needs careful examination and discussion to ensure we are adopting a broad approach that will serve us well for some longer period of time and not just a temporary expedient that will create two problems for every problem it solves. It is a doctrine adopted in response to changes in the world that we all know need to be addressed in some manner and it should not by any means be dismissed out of hand. The published doctrine goes a long way towards trying to begin to justify pre-emptive attacks on particular countries. But there is considerable work to be done in fashioning any kind of broader international understanding and agreement on the legitimacy of this doctrine -- and there is considerable confusion as to what it implies for our future behavior and the behavior of other countries, notably India and Pakistan, or Israel for that matter.

To: Ilaine who wrote (48254)	9/30/2002 10:24:07 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "We have "beefs" with lots of countries, including Mexico, Canada, Germany . . . none of whom are in danger of "unbridled aggression."" This probably depends on what you define "unbridled aggression" to mean. I would guess that it is a term that is defined primarily in the eye of the beholder. Maybe you would get some understanding of the term by more closely examining US behavior with the small countries near it. Frankly, I think that the attempted use of moral principles to justify starting a war is contemptible and disgusting. -- Carl