I am not against a missile defense; I am against building star wars.
"Star wars", meaning a multilayered space based system of lasers, particle beams and so forth isn't really on the table for another generation. What Bush has talked about building is missile defense by using ground and ship based missiles.
I see a missile defense as a deterrent to other nations attacking us, and not something we actually deploy.
How would it deter if it isn't deployed?
I wouldn't want to live in a world that's been nuked.
Who wants the world to be nuked? I don't understand your point.
"What about "enough to protect our interests", or to retaliate against those who attack us (rather then just providing a direct defense)?"
Like I said, once nukes had been unleashed, I don't think life would be worth living.
1 - I wasn't talking about nukes in the above sentence.
2 - Who is pushing for use of nuclear weapons?
3 - If some nukes were used but the US wasn't nuked, the US would be effected but mainly economically. For example if India and Pakistan nuked each other it would be a horrible humanitarian tragedy and it would hurt the world's economy but the effect on the US would probably be less then that of WWII. Of course WWII had a huge effect as would a nuclear war elsewhere in the world, but not, for most people, a "I don't want to live in this world anymore" effect.
Another consideration is that having more then enough to get the job done usually allows the job to be done quicker and with fewer casualties on your side and frequently even on the enemy side. How much extra is that worth to you?
Now, you're entering the realm of the nonsensical. I know you know what you're saying...its all rational and logical......but do you ever think through the implications?
Huh? What I said was not only rational and logical but true and significant. If you think it has any bad implications I suggest you spell them out.
The EU can pick up the burden and in a few years, so can Russia. NK and Japan can take care of their corner of the world. Its not necessary to shoulder the burden........Some of us keep telling us that. Why?
They could pick up the burden (even if it would take them time and money to get ready to do so). But I don't think they will.
""Pre-emptively" isn't relevant to this specific point."
It has all the relevance in the world.......it would be a whole different ball game.
I didn't say it isn't an important consideration, only that it isn't important to the exact point being addressed. If the attack was not preemptive the cost of rebuilding Iraq would still be a cost associated with the war.
You said " The money we are providing Iraq to help rebuild Iraq is not foreign aid....its part of the cost of doing war". Whether the war is preemptive or not its still part of the cost of doing war (and its still foreign aid as well).
If Saddam had declared war on us with no provocation on our part and then we invaded Iraq and kicked him out of power the aid will still be related to the fact that we went to war. It would still be part of the cost of the war.
In the first approach, we brought the cost upon ourselves; in the latter, we had no choice. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference but many of us do very clearly.
Sure I see the difference but that wasn't the point in question. The point being contended was your statement " The money we are providing Iraq to help rebuild Iraq is not foreign aid....its part of the cost of doing war because of the way we did this war......attacking pre-emptively.
That statement is false. Attacking pre-emptively doesn't change the fact that the cost is associated with the war. It isn't relevant to that point. It might be relevant to a lot of other points but not to that one. Whether we brought the cost on ourselves or whether we had no choice its still a cost associated with the war. I don't mind if you respond to the points I make with agreement, with disagreement or even with "I don't care about that the important point that we should be talking about is...", but I really would rather you not assert that you are dealing with the point when you are really bringing up another point. We where discussing whether the cost is associated with the war BECAUSE of the fact that the war is preemptive. To support that idea you say that that we "brought the cost upon ourselves" because the war was preemptive. But "associated with the war", and "brought upon us by our own actions" are not the same thing. You are committing the classic logical fallacy of Ignorantio Elenchi or Irrelevant Conclusion.
See web.cn.edu
Tim |
