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: Bilow who wrote (61178)	12/11/2002 8:49:38 PM
From: kumar	Respond to of 281500

<we didn't stop the transaction> My guess is US would have liked to, but could not, coz of maritime laws and international agreements. I personally think, the Fox News TV story about "paid off for favors" is likely over-the-top.

To: Bilow who wrote (61178)	12/11/2002 10:22:32 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

Certainly do wish the US could have stopped the "transaction"....but in the end, it would have just given those who wish the US ill, additional fodder for their cantankerous bombast. This way, the world knows, that the US can, and now will, protect itself and its citizens. Having a few Spy's in the Sky is nice, after all. To say nothing of a few very Special Forces.

To: Bilow who wrote (61178)	12/11/2002 10:42:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

In light of the fact that we didn't stop the transaction, what are we threatening to do, give their shipments official US military protection? We probably did stop the transaction, Carl. If we had known for sure that Yemen was really the final destination, we would have let it sail into port. This way, we gave the Yemenis plausible deniability on their gun-running, which they took -- at the second chance: "No, it's not ours. Um, wait, yes, we guess it's ours now"