The US should not do anything that is strictly regarding Al Qaeda.It should CONTINUE, as it has since Sept 2001, to do things regarding international terrorism, including but not limited to Al Qaeda, and including but not limited to anti-US terrorism.If there is a country sponsoring international terrorism, as Iraq was openly doing under Saddam Hussein, and that country cannot be dissuaded from this behavior by diplomatic means, that country should be clearly informed that the US does not abandon the military option.That doesn't necessarily mean a full-scale invasion and forced regime change is needed. Consider: Libya used to be as blatant in its terrorism as Iraq; Reagan launched an air attack clearly targeted at Libya's leader (although it didn't actually get him); Libya has been progressively cleaning up its behavior ever since.But consider: Iraq had been under international sanctions, and behaved in such a way to induce an actual air attack (or counterfire) almost every week, for TWELVE YEARS and still its leadership was handing out checks and praise to terrorists - explicitly, and explicitly because they were terrorists - on national television. Clearly something more forceful was called for.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra