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: michael97123 who wrote (151854)	11/17/2004 5:26:32 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

You can always go back to LindyBillLand, where "objectivity" rules. Near as I can tell, this thread is still mostly bogged down in the post-election gloatathon. When that will let up is quite an open question, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

To: michael97123 who wrote (151854)	11/17/2004 8:04:24 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael: Maybe my obtuse way of making a point has been lost on you in the emotion which I obviously triggered. Someone's original premise: make it be known that the US will bomb some target, any Islamic target, if there is a WMD attack. Preferably an Islamic holy site. My bottom line: state-less terrorists - and I do not doubt for a minute that some sort of WMD or WMT (weapon of mass terror such as a dirty bomb) could be developed and deployed by terrorists - don't present very good targets. Lets follow the logic being presented by the original post: 1. WMD attack happens. 2. US "retaliates" against some target. Its perfectly reasonable to suggest "staunch" ally Saudi Arabia. If I were Bin Laden I would even try to manufacture ties to S.A. But lets say its Kosovo or Iraq (political irony) or Libya or Nigeria or Indonesia... 3. What follows next? Inflame the entire Muslim world by either a) killing millions of innocents in retaliation or their b) holy sites? You can surely bet that the next WMD / WMT will be lobbed at Jerusalem. And Tel Aviv. And maybe Boise Idaho or Crawford Texas for good measure. You can also bet that moderates will start to swing away from moderation as a result of the barbarity of the response. Unlike Hiroshima, it won't take decades for what happened, in all its gruesome detail, to spread around the world. You say my initial responses were knee jerk - I disagree with you. They were designed to provoke a reaction, a path I chose in part due to the absurdity of the original premise.

To: michael97123 who wrote (151854)	11/18/2004 6:59:37 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

Those same two argued that our policy of deterrence against iraq was working but now dont want to consider deterrence here because it involves nuclear war. I can't speak for the other one, of course, but I don't exactly know what you're talking about here. I have, I guess, argued that containment was working against Iraq, against endless "proof" by assertion and WMD evidentiary standards that it was failing. But containment and detererrence aren't the same thing. As for C2's nuke mecca nonsense, there's an awful lot of silly stuff posted here that doesn't rate comment.