Reply: (“Kerry’s foreign policy is kickin’,” Oct 14) Ok Todd, so stability is a higher priority than democratic institutions, therefore threats to stability should probably be dealt with. I’d say threats such as nuclear proliferation from rogue nations and terrorist groups such as al Qaeda out there with the motivation of launching such attacks qualify. Stability is threatened before a nuke is in the hands of a terrorist, this is way too late and we may never have a chance to defend ourselves. Maybe Kerry could be chums with Chirac and others in ignoring threats which the world intelligence community believes exists and using means which have failed time and again to face such grave dangers, but does that really help the world’s situation? In a world of nuclear proliferation, we can’t afford to have unchecked threats. Would diplomacy have stopped al Qaeda? Would it have changed the Taliban’s mind for harboring al Qaeda when the threat of war didn’t persuade them to assist in turning over the terrorists who had just perpetrated this attack?
Russell ChidesterJunior, Business