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: epicure who wrote (106441)	7/19/2003 2:49:30 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think Desert Storm would have generated the same crowds? I wouldn't have marched (though I DID march against this war-with between 75k and 150k other people->>> I was thinking more of the verbal protests discussed here, rather than the marchers. But marchers should be affected by the better communications available and therefore better organized because of prior talks over the Web- see you at the Mall at 8AM, etc. Preemptive is a word we need to get accustomed to, the intent being to end a terrorist act before it is launched We would have to cut off their money, blow up their explosives, intercept and destroy a missile, or even kill or capture the terrorists before they can take the first step, such as pushing a button or buying a passport. This requires .that someone evaluate the possible threats and then act, not sit back and let bad things happen. Some countries are now wide awake, looking at N Korea and Iran, and trying to form a opinion of what peemptive action should be implemented before they get the Nukes. If N Korea is allowed to build a nuke, unmolested, it means the end of non-proliferation talks and treaties, using the argument, if Korea can do why cant (we). The buck has to stop somewhere. Does anyone think we(?) should do nothing about N Korea, nor Iran, until Bolivia or Peru get nuclear missiles also. What we have now is preemptive talks- is there a line in the sand where action will be taken if talks dont work.? How would we enjoy a safe world with 200 nuclear powers? It seems to be an important problem, worthy of study and decisions by our government and others, and it distresses me see the Administration waste time on defense against unproven accusations -some stretching back 10 years or more, or dissecting this (completed) military campaign to see what was done right or done wrong. Sig .