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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (172858)	7/30/2003 3:47:59 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571206

JF, your views are consistent with a policy of deterrence. The only problem with that policy is the danger of someone crossing the line. That happened on 9/11. I doubt many people want to take the chance of anyone crossing that line again. Yeah, yeah, you're more likely to die in a car accident than in an act of terrorism. But if we have the means and the ability, and if the cost isn't too high, I'd say preemption is vastly preferable over deterrence. Especially if the guy you're "pre-empting" is someone that ought to go anyway. Are you for an attack on Sudan or North Korea? I don't know much about Sudan, but North Korea is a prime example of how preemption is out of the question. Like I said before, Seoul is just 100 km away from the DMZ. Also, China might not like America just going into North Korea like it was another Iraq. And China has a lot of pull here, given that they're inevitably going to be the next superpower. That's why we're stuck trying to "deter" North Korea. I for one am glad Iraq didn't get to that point, though you may argue that Iraq would not have gotten there ever. Tenchusatsu