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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (3548)	2/8/2003 8:18:40 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 15987

Are you saying that a preemptive strike may be in the eye or mind of the preemptive striker? To some extent. The one doing the strike nearly always rationalizes that the strike is pre-emptive, unless the intent is simply to conquer. The Japanese thought of Pearl Harbor as pre-emptive. But as the word is generally used, a strike is truly pre-emptive only if it pre-empts an imminent attack, as Israel's did in 1967, for example. The trouble with a war on terrorism is that an imminent terrorist strike is invisible and can only be shown by circumstantial evidence. Anyway, I think it was a mistake to bring up the word "pre-emptive" in connection with Iraq. Forcing the UN to put teeth into its own resolutions is not pre-emptive. We are just finishing Gulf War I before Saddam gets nukes and decides to try to finish it himself.