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: redfish who wrote (149406)	10/27/2004 4:00:50 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

First, again, the issue of retaliation and of invading Iraq are separate. Regardless of our policy towards the families of the hijackers, there would still be collateral damage in Baghdad et al. Second, no one will stand for us rounding up innocent parties and executing them. Collateral damage is one thing, one cannot avoid the deaths of the innocent in the chaos of war, but when one has a person in custody, one does not summarily execute him/her for being related to someone who did one harm. Third, the acquiescence to the MAD strategy had to do with having no alternative if we were to attain a degree of stability and mutual assurance. Hardly anyone thought it was ideal to target population centers primarily. In the same way, no one will stand for your strategy if there is the least alternative.