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 (81420)	3/13/2003 1:53:23 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

Steven, the Soviet missile threat was countered by Mutually Assured Destruction. What counters the radical Islamic threat is fear of our use of military power. The perception that we would not act to go after them, emboldened Al Queada to attack us on 9/11. It's been reported Bin Laden believed we didn't possess the national courage to come after him, by the way we left Somalia. Talking, writing new resolutions, or building day care centers won't stop these nutcases. Fear of the United States military (and other police forces around the world) will. Don't kid yourself, there wouldn't be one inspector in Iraq today, had it not been for Hussien's fear of U.S. military power. res- Oddly, we are pursuing a course that seems calculated to increase, rather than to alleviate, the possibility that terrorists will get their hands on WMD. Why we’re doing this is anything but clear to me, but we are. Totally disagree. A couple of simple questions clearly illustrates this point. Would we be safer if we released the recently captured Al Queada kingpin? Has capturing him emboldened others to attack America? The same will be true when we capture or kill Hussein. The more we go after them, the more terrorist sactuaries we take out (like Iraq), the safer the world will be.