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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (971)	5/25/2007 6:12:48 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 4152

My position fits in there. Containment and deterrence were the best we could do against the USSR and China. Michael, exactly how do you "contain" non-state actors such as a clandestine terrorist group either operating covertly, or overtly as a "state within a state" inside of a sovereign nation? We were able to "contain" Russia and China only by waging numerous proxy wars, either directly, or indirectly via foreign assistance and training missions, while at the same time providing economic assistance. And we avoided direct conflict with both of those states only via the policy of mutually assured destruction. For us to have the type of "containment" you speak of, we'd have to permit the Jihadists to actually seize control over an entire nation of people and then be willing to hold that entire nation accountable for any attack upon the US. This is what bothers me about Ed's strategy that you seem to supporting. It does NOTHING to prevent vulnerable nations from defending themselves against a Jihadist insurgency. And even in the case of Pakistan, where we're supporting a non-democratic military ruler, it would appear that Ed is suggesting we just let them sort it all out for themselves and wash our hands of the affair. This, despite the clear evidence that when the Jihadist movements seize control over a country, they utilize it as a base from which to strike out at the US and other countries. If you're not in favor of helping other nations to defend themselves against these threats, then just say so. It's a valid, although I suggest morally derelict, argument to make. Just be man enough to accept that there will be consequences to such a strategy, possibly including a future war in which millions of Americans are required to put their lives at risk waging a war that might have been prevented by being proactive in our confrontation against this militant theology. Hawk