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: JohnM who wrote (53391)	10/20/2002 11:10:56 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<...This administration has canned the only policy out there--of trying to limit the dispersion of the Russian nukes and the skills that went along with it and, so far as I can tell, has no serious policy to replace it. I don't think invading every country (with policies we don't approve of) that either has nukes or announces plans to have them or can be detected as trying to do so, is a serious policy. That international problem along with reducing the Al Q type threats strikes me as more important than an Iraqi invasion...>> Good points John: Unfortunately, many of the NeoCons (like Perle and Cheney) favor a unilateral, militaristic, and 'pre-emptive strike' approach...With so many potential threats in countries overseas that seems to be a dangerous, expensive and counter-productive way of dealing with some of the hot spots. Al Qaeda is a global enemy and successfully combating them will continue to require incredible GLOBAL SUPPORT...we will not get this if we engineer 'regime changes' by invading countries where we don't approve of their policies...JMHO.