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: LindyBill who wrote (68124)	1/23/2003 5:00:33 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

our involvement then is not what triggered the hatred of the West that culminated in 911. That was there anyway. Even assuming for the moment the unlikely idea of clean hands back in the Carter/Reagan/Bush eras, that blowback from training camps was a "just a darn mistake"... What is the consensus on why the administration insists on taking a belligerent position on every situation, even those where being belligerent requires a flip-flop (i.e., Iraq UN inspectors, Korea nuclear demands, etc.) ? This is no longer a joke, to say this is an adminstration that can't take "yes" for an answer. Rhetoric aside for a moment, observed actions look designed to create maximum chance for warfare. I suppose one could say the administration is engaging in "brinksmanship", rather than cynical ploys to increase military fear and domestic political control, but that's the best one do. Instead we're being fed the usual, "gee, these actions are all out of our hands, we just didn't know what would happen, gosh darn it, and sorry in advance to the next series of American terrorist victims"