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 (79789)	3/6/2003 1:26:38 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<There is nearly complete agreement that Saddam is a problem, even outside the region. The question is not whether Saddam is a problem, but what are the appropriate means to deal with the problem, and, even more, what is the appropriate method of determining appropriate means.>>> Thanks for your kind reply and comments. And you make a good point in the above sentence, which indicates a lot of thinking needs to be done by the UN now that the nature of threats or attacks by Terrorists is somewhat clearer There can be some time to think about how to respond to a series of threats by a Nation But in other events there is no time to stop and debate For example. . Consider a response to an action like the 9-11 event, and assume that Afghanistan was identified as the country of origin which originated the idea and was also going to conduct another operation by releasing biological agents the next day in Chicago. But we dont know who in Afghanistan ordered or organised it, and it might have been a devious anti-government group that did it and blamed it on the Administration. So we cannot just go in and blow away Afghanistan to prevent the next days planned attack, the countries leaders may know nothing about it. And its no good to talk to them, because if they did it they would lie about it. Debate in the UN would be useless, the second or even third attack could not be prevented No one could reasonably fault us for taking unilateral action, even if it involves bombing a Mosque full of Terrorists in Ireland who planned the operation. Are we going to sacrifice Chicago merely to avoid severe condemnation by UN members or Muslim Nations? Modern technology , video conferencing, instant communications,provides a way to to handle this event since we could talk to Irish Authorities, describe what has happened, warn them of the impending dis-assembly of a terrorist group via explosives, or ask them to handle the problem. The Administration seems to be wide awake, have qualified planners working perhaps night and day, to plan our response to such events. I trust their judgment, a Democratic President could do no better. Sleep well Regards Sig Sorry, no time left to cover a situation where the UN could be useful