From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sat Aug 03 2002 - 16:39:03 MDT
On 3 Aug 2002 at 23:28, Mark Collins wrote:
> On Saturday 03 August 2002 10:49 pm, you wrote:
> > > [rhinoceros]
> > > So it seems. Then, it is the old argument of using 9/11 as an
> > >argument for preemptive strikes. Back to square one.
>
> The problem with "pre-emptive" strikes is that it assumes people are
> going to follow through on their threats, which is very rarely the
> case. If the US sent armed forces into every country that stated it
> didn't like their foreign policy, you might as well break out the
> nukes, 'cos the entire planet is fucked,
>
In the cases under consideration, Iraq and Al Quaeda, historically, past
threats have indeed been followed by terrorist attempts. Thus, there is
every reason to suspect the same of their current threats.
> --
> ===
> Mark 'Nurgle' Collins
> http://www.thisisnurgle.org.uk
> Stupid IRC quote of the <variable time period>:
> <phoenix> insider, you'll have to excuse nurgle, he's the epitamy of
> evil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:51 MDT