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: Ish who wrote (109719)	8/3/2003 8:08:10 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You would invade a country because they "might" develop links to terrorists who "might" threaten us "sometime" in the future? I can't understand why other countries did not line up to support that policy -- but then perhaps they are not insane.

To: Ish who wrote (109719)	8/3/2003 8:13:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

One "could be spawned" anywhere. If we use our imagination we can invade anywhere. Some people think that kind of creativity on the part of a government, and especially a superpower, is a problem. I happen to think that. Unless you are willing to invade the whole world, sometimes it will be "too late" to prevent things. I suppose the world will be divided between people who support a rule of law, even if sometimes that means there are casualties taken in the process of waiting, and those who want to jump in and cause casualties to prevent imagined casualties. The problem is, you may also get real casualties from terrorists you did not see coming, on top of the casualties you pile up in pursuit of your imagined threats. I would argue that in going after Iraq, we went after a straw man- "threat wise". There are other bigger badder threats out there. We should have focused on them. IMO, of course.