DON'T START THE WAR Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 : DON'T START THE WAR

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TigerPaw who wrote (14526)	3/1/2003 11:20:04 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) of 25898

<< If a country is forced to remain too backward it has little tie to the modern world as we know it. The various sanctions do not just try to keep the nuclear weapons out of Iraq, but all metalurgy, chemistry, biology, physics, materials science, or mechanics that existed in the U.S. well before I was born. I don't think it is possible to keep a nation in igorance to that degree.>> Clearly keeping a nation down and out is not good. However, when leadership of a country has acquired and used technology to kill on a massive scale I'm not sure they have proven to be worthy of benefiting from technological advances. The basic point being that there is a cost for bad decisions. The cost in this case was sanctions. Those sanctions were imposed because Saddam and his leadership were not mature enough to handle to use that technology in the way it was intended. The result ( and Saddam screams about this as if he really cares) is that nothing that could be used in an evil way (including certain medical advances) were shipped his way. His own citizens ( men, women and children ) died as a result of the abuses of his regimes decisions. To hear him talk you would think it was our fault but it wasn't. It's almost like the prime directive on Star Trek. You can't give people something that is too advanced for their evolutionary process or it may lead to disaster. I did just that in this case and its Saddams fault. Iraq has claimed millions of children have died as a result of not having their medical met. What they neglect to say is none of that needed to happen had they shown responsibility in correctly using technology when they received it. If we go to war there will be more people killed without question. So what should we do? Should we allow more people to die because we can't trust the current regime with technology? Should we bomb them to try and rid Saddam so that we can resume technology shipments (knowing that more people will die from the bombing). OR - Should we allow him to acquire advanced technology knowing in the past he's used it without regard for his neighbors and people? I don't want to keep nations down and out but I don't want to supply them with the means to kill us either

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next