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: Dayuhan who wrote (74397)	2/16/2003 1:06:51 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

i>And if Saddam is gone, the terrorists can get weapons, training, and shelter elsewhere. They don’t need him. They will probably gain more from our action than they will lose, especially if we play into their hands by moving unilaterally. Conducting terrorist operations is a complex process; weapons, coordination, financing, training and support are an integral part of the process. Behind practically every major terrorist act, lie “legitimate” government contacts giving it support. Al Capone was never arrested for his links with organized crime. He was also never tried and convicted for murder. Yet, most people would agree he was the coordinator of a lot of horrific acts including murder. What stopped, or severely reduced organized crime was the fact that we destroyed their centers of support, cut off their money supply and arrested or killed those who supported the network. Coming up with reason after reason, for not militarily taking them out, is playing right into their hands. No action (or inaction) is going to be a panacea. If a person is banging his head against a wall, he doesn't necessarily need to know what to do with his head, to figure out that stopping would be a good thing. Terrorist cells will be around for a long time, and every time they rear their head we should take out the places, which give them support. We may come up with a myriad of different ways to accomplish it, but the goal should be the same. Due to the nature of our relationship with Iraq, and Saddam's history of using WMD, invasion (short of his departure or overthrow) appears to be the best course to follow. Each nation, which supports terrorist networks, will have its own unique solution. For Afghanistan and Iraq invasion. For Iran, perhaps covert CIA operations and money funneled to democratic movements inside Iran will be the right answer. The point is, just because we may invade Iraq, doesn't necessarily mean it will the only path we take.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (74397)	2/16/2003 11:39:52 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

If we take that approach, we’re going to be invading an awful lot of people. There’s a reasonable possibility that a major terrorist attack on the US is being planned right now in Europe. It’s more likely to be plotted in Europe, in fact, than in Baghdad. The money is more likely to come from Riyadh than Baghdad. Who do we invade? Your response is, of course, an expected and reasonable one. However, it appears that perhaps you are not convinced or have not read Goldberg's artice, which I think is valuable. Here are links to it. Message 18570453 Message 18570464