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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (61068)	12/11/2002 12:11:41 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

~OT~...Politics (and the leadership of the GOP)... Lott's 'Sorry' Doesn't Cut It washingtonpost.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (61068)	12/11/2002 12:23:38 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

The world should soon ask for a regime change in the US <ggg> Bush is clearly out to conquer the world. He is turning the US into a "rogue state" - zero respect for world opinion, zero respect for international treaties, an unhealthy appetite for unilateral military action to whomever he does not like. And now he is threatening nuclear bombs. Reminds me of the Bill's "big swinging dick" metaphor. There might be a Freudian explanation for Bush's behaviour but I dunno...

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (61068)	12/11/2002 7:40:52 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

[Bush]won't rule out responding to terror attacks with nukes I dont see anything new here. the US position for about 57 years has been to use all its might/power/weaponry at its disposal, in the event of a conflict. Before Gulf War 1, James Baker made the same statement as is being made today.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (61068)	12/12/2002 2:54:15 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush doctrine: Hit first (Has he gone mad?!!!! Now we know why Cheney is having the taxpayers build him a bomb shelter IMO) He also won't rule out responding to terror attacks with nukes No, mad is waiting for a foreign power or agency to kill hundreds, thousands, or millions of Americans before acting. It has been American policy for decades that we would use "all means" in responding to a chemical, biologic, or nuclear attack on the US or its allies. The difficulty with WMD or terrorist attacks, unlike conventional armed force, is that the window of opportunity to detect and counter an attack is so slight. Knowledge of the "imminence" of the attack is not enough, if you don't know the details of the attack. There are no massive troop movements, no cue to indicate the nature and window of opportunity of the attack. As was demonstrated on 9/11 (which there were indications of the "imminence" of an attack), the actual attack can and most likely will be sudden, totally by surprise, and massive in damage. To counter such threats requires eliminating the threat BEFORE the threat is staged. Otherwise, you're in the position of asserting that we should ALLOW Americans to die, in massive numbers, before acting. That is unconscionable. Derek