SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Alighieri who wrote (148925)8/1/2002 11:28:44 AM
From: TimF   of 1574252
 
Initiatives that pre 9/11 would be viewed as
shocking attacks on constitutional rights go largely unopposed.

I recognize this danger, but I think you exaggerate the extent that it is happening. Actually to the extent it is happening it is nothing new. The constitution has been twisted like a pretzel so that the government can do what it wants since at least FDR, probably earlier. The problem is less of a crises where Bush is suddenly doing something horrible, then it is a chronic problem of lack of respect for the constitution that goes back for at least the better part of a century, with examples (like Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus) going back even further.

Actions that are sold to us as pre-emptive, in the aftermath of
9/11, exploit fear and patriotism. The problem is all this is beginning to look like Ramboism.

Attacking Iraq possibly might be a bad idea, certainly it could be stumbling into a mess, but it is not an example of mindless aggression. I see danger from the situation either way. If we invade Iraq we have to deal with Iraq after destroying their army and it would be a mess. Plus the action might make Arabs in other countries, or maybe even non Arab Muslims angry. But if we don't attack we risk Iraq getting nukes that it could use to deter the US from responding to aggressive Iraqi threats in the future and encourage others to think that if they want to get nukes and threaten their neighbors all they need is the willingness to deal with maybe a decade of sanctions, and maybe not even that. If the perceived cost of being a threatening nuclear power are lower the perceived benefits might cause more countries to go that way. They probably wont attack the US with nukes as they don't want there country turned into radioactive slag but they will try to keep the US from protecting its interests by threatening nuclear attacks. Its already happened, a senior Chinese official commented on how the US wouldn't want to lose
Los Angeles to save Taipei.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News