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 : High Tolerance Plasticity
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: kodiak_bull who wrote (16287)8/30/2002 3:02:10 PM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (1) of 23153
 
KB, the truly scary thing about the "preemptive strike" justification for an assault on the government of Iraq is that it is an even more compelling rationale to justify an attack on us by Iraq. Where's the rule of law in that? In some sense aggression is always self defense since if nations do what they want or sieze what they want, other nations will become a threat. The more basic issue should be whether we should be allowed to move the threshhold from an actual act of aggression to, chose one:
A. A tendency to act aggressively
B. A tendency to act aggressively coupled with some serious cultural and political differences
C. A tendency to act aggressively coupled with some serious cultural and political differences and a history of warlike clashes
D. A tendency to act aggressively coupled with some serious cultural and political differences and a history of warlike clashes with the expressed goal of finding the means to harm us effectively
E. A tendency to act aggressively coupled with some serious cultural and political differences and a history of warlike clashes with the expressed goal of finding the means to harm us effectively and besides they're not that likeable and they have oil etc. OR
F. We've been attacked.

I kind of like the simplicity and moral unambiguity of "We've been attacked." It's true that some of us may pay a price but that's a price others of us will pay anyway if we attack under any of the previous justifications. Of course those people paying that price will be ours and their soldiers and "their" civilians and maybe those deaths are more tolerable than the deaths of us as "our civilians."

He hasn't, but if Bush makes a case that Iraq has attacked us through cooperating with, arming or conspiring with terrorists, then fine; otherwise we should take our chances as we always have. Just because we can crush them doesn't mean we should. The world doesn't like unfettered power in the hands of those who would wield it too freely and thoughout history the backlash has been the buildup of the military powers of others to balance the threat. I hope we are never perceived as a threat to the soveriegnty of other nations.

Re Rumsy. I think "Rumsy" could talk me into believing just about anything. He's such an articulate, self-assured voice and mind that I trust him too, until I realize that the "truths" he speaks can change 180 degrees when he needs them to. In my opinion he's a prime example of an "ends justify the means" guy and part of his job is to turn my head. I examine his words very closely. Ed
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News