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: Ilaine who wrote (127364)	3/24/2004 5:22:44 PM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

<<<After all the debate we've had about pre-emptive strikes, I find it curious that both Clinton and Bush should be criticized for NOT engaging in pre-emptive strikes before 9/11. >>> Very strange..... In addition some think it would have been more ahhhh, morally correct to go after N Korea rather than Iraq. Which seems even weirder, since Kim has 15 times as many troops as Saddam, in addition to having nukes. Perhaps it is something of a challenge, the question being can someone talk Bush into going in before the election and get our butts kicked. Sig

To: Ilaine who wrote (127364)	3/26/2004 3:13:10 AM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Crossing national borders to go after terrorists was unthinkable at the time Well, Israel has practiced it for decades (see Black September). fas.org But it has certainly become more fashionable since 9-11. A recent example: Reports: Jailed Agents Admit Guilt in Qatar Moscow Times Monday, March 22, 2004 moscowtimes.ru After all the debate we've had about pre-emptive strikes, I find it curious that both Clinton and Bush should be criticized for NOT engaging in pre-emptive strikes before 9/11. I agree.