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: D. Long who wrote (104651)	7/11/2003 2:48:33 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi D. Long; Re: "For years we've been warned about the threat of terrorism, rogue states, and WMD. No one really took it very seriously. Now we get bit in the ass and start taking it seriously, and some people act like this is all the mad ravings of a lunatic extremist cabal. It's all "perspective" I suppose." (1) Why should we take WMDs seriously after they turned out not to exist after all? (2) As far as "rogue states" go, if the Taliban was so supportive of Osama bin Laden, then why were the terrorists armed with $1.29 box cutters? (3) While Afghanistan can be tied, though somewhat indirectly, to terrorism, there is no such connection with Iraq. Unless you count Saddam's giving money to the Palestinians, and if you count that, then we would have to take on the vast majority of the Arab world. (4) Our complaint is not with the concept of fighting terrorism, but with the Administration's pathetic attempt at it. Instead of reducing terrorism, we've generated even more terrorists than ever before. -- Carl

To: D. Long who wrote (104651)	7/11/2003 5:11:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

For years we've been warned about the threat of terrorism, rogue states, and WMD. No one really took it very seriously. Well, that's not quite true.. Many people took it QUITE seriously. But democracies, and especially the US, has always had a history of being reactive, not proactive. Bush is the first president to really make "pre-emption" of potential future threats a foreign policy agenda. There's just too much momentum to not "rock the boat" and get people too worried about things we really cannot fully prepare for, or predict. Saying there will be terrorist attacks is one thing, but stating what type of attack, its targets, and the dates on which it will occur, are all what really matter. And it's THAT information that is most difficult to obtain, especially when our HUMINT collection capability has been literally decimated in favor of electronic intelligence. The US has almost always been woefully unprepared for the major conflicts in which it has become engaged. WWI, WWII.. etc.. But it's how we finish that ultimately counts. Hawk