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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (127533)	3/28/2004 3:52:26 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 281500

*Can't wait to see how he explains that of course it doesn't apply to Iraq, only to the already-proven case of Al Qaeda....* Actually Nadine, I'd much rather hear Clarke's explanation. Since his former employer was, according to Clarke, bogged down in an old, outmoded, "cold war," and state centric view of the world that hinders the fight on terrorism and all. I figure he must have an explanation. I know for instance how his cross border, regional threat management theory was able to justify proposals to bomb the bejesus out of Afghanistan. But what I need to hear, particularly post 9/11, is how Afghanistan made the cut while Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, SA, Syria, etc. were all dropped to his bomb-free list. ...But in either case I won't be holding my breath. 0\|0

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (127533)	3/28/2004 9:52:30 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>If you wait for proof it will be too late. How ironic... Now you have provided justification for the Iraq invasion. In the case of pre 911. Reinforced cockpit doors..air marshals..luggage inspections and all of the other post 911 security measures that were implemented. It isn't necessary to wait for people to die before implementing security measures....and of course those two terror suspects. In the case of Iraq. The choice is not between doing nothing and a preemptive war. Giving the terrorists what they wanted isn't exactly a smart response. Squandering world support isn't an effective response. Going after Iraq because daddy didn't finish the job or because they tried to kill daddy isn't smart either. Neither is going after Sadaam because he sits on 20 percent of the world's proven reserves and wants more a response to terrorism. The painful truth is it really is about oil and more specifically the economic engine that is driven by oil...the western Way of Life. If we want to stop terrorism then we should stop our dependence on the ME for vital resources. This is the biggest failure of the current administration and the biggest miss in the war on terror....and drilling in Alaska won't solve this problem. Drilling in Alaska sends the wrong message...we can't drill our way out...there ain't enough oil. Want to stop terrorism? How about taking 100 billion and putting it towards alternate energy research and development? How about some energy efficiency standards for my 11 mpg F250 2001 pickup truck? Want to get world support?..take less and give more. Give clean renewable solar energy..take less oil. And don't forget to shake the trees as something may fall out. Zeuspaul