Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (2576)	3/14/2002 2:59:10 AM
From: Michael M	Respond to of 21057

cool

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (2576)	3/14/2002 4:30:45 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

And those 19 nhijackers aboard those 4 jets? What do you call them? The Good Guys? I haven't seen anybody calling them the good guys. Part of the problem with the whole "axis of evil" concept is that no direct connection has been clearly shown between those evil hijackers and any of the states that make up the axis. I have not seen anybody explaining what the Iranian, North Korean, or Iraqi governments are doing that makes them any more evil than, say, the governments of Somalia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, or any number of others. I have seen no convincing argument supporting the notion that they pose enough of a threat to the US to justify the expense and messiness of war. I could support our involvement in Afghanistan, largely because there was the Taleban, al Quaeda, and the events of 9/11 were demonstrably connected. I would have a difficult time extending that support to action against Iraq, unless some much better cause is shown and unless a cost/benefit calculation is clearly advantageous. One critical part of any move on Iraq is that there must be a clear goal, and by that I do not mean "get rid of Saddam". There must be a clear and practical vision of what we intend to do after getting rid of Saddam, and I see little evidence that this is being considered. Given the current demographic and power balance in Iraq, the people that look most likely to fill a power vacuum are the fundamentalist Shiites in the south, and their ascension to power would hardly serve our interests.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (2576)	3/14/2002 7:22:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Governments often try to frame their wars in moral tones. Nothing new here. Lincoln didn't particularly care whether the Civil War freed a single slave. He said so. It was hard to get people riled up about "free navigation of the Mississippi", though. Exactly. I'm not suggesting that framing wars in moral terms is new. Nor that it's not an extremely effective way to get backing from the populace. The downside is in how it plays outside the country both with the enemy and with other countries. This is a very "popular" war here at home. There was a horrific surprise attack on our soil, after all, and dissent is almost nonexistent. I don't know when our country has ever been so united. So there's no need to frame the war in moral terms to stir up support. The support is already solid. The moralizing plays well at home and may be good for morale, but doesn't really add value in terms of support because the support would be there without it. So the question becomes how it plays abroad. We have two audiences abroad. One is potential allies. The other is the people who hate us so much that terrorism is spawned. Is the moral framework helpful with either of those audiences? Most definitely not. It disturbs our allies and reinforces the view among potential future terrorists that we are arrogant and insensitive. I am not saying that what was done to us was not evil. Nor that there's anything wrong with us thinking it evil. Nor that there's anything problematic about our government recognizing it as evil. My concern is about basing the whole thing on morality rather than national interest. Karen