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 (113782)	9/3/2003 12:31:15 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It might. If terrorism doesn't create terror- then it fails as a weapon. Terrorism didn't create terror in Mogadishu or Yemen (the Cole), yet somehow its proponents concluded that it had worked very well, and they had little to fear wrt the response. So they upped the ante on 9/11.

To: epicure who wrote (113782)	9/3/2003 12:51:30 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Clinton was the epitome of restraint. Have you forgotten what took place during his presidency? Face the ugly facts, X, restraint with respect to militant political Islam simply does not work. We've tried both sides of the aggression/restraint coin. Neither reduced the attacks on us. Because militant Islam's next goal IMO will be to control ME oil--or destroy our ability to get it cheaply--the continued use of the restraint card will be useless. The ability to cut of cheap ME oil is the ultimate terror weapon. Don't think for a minute that the militants haven't thought about that aspect of things. It's an area in which I feel we are horribly vulnerable. If that is a good premise, it makes a lot of sense to have a substantial military presence in the ME.