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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (37503)	8/13/2002 9:55:41 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yep, it's the second, the Greeley one. As for "just" wars versus "necessary" wars, it's not quite clear to me from the text of Greeley's argument, what the distinction is. Perhaps it's this. The bar for a "just" war is a very, very high one, but the bar for a "necessary" war is a bit lower. In Greeley's universe, WW2 passes the second but not the first. You would have to ask him why. The point I like about the piece is his discussion of the unanticipated consequences of going to war. That was well done. And it, on pragmatic grounds, puts the bar for going to war fairly high. Much higher than suspicions of an Al Qaeda tie to Saddam based on those now doubtful meetings of last fall. One of the most effective brakes on going to war in recent years has been fears of public opinion generated out of the Vietnam war. It looks to me as if the Bushies have discarded that fear. They apparently think 9-11 put a large bit of teflon on them and that "smart" bombs and Special Forces will do the rest. The arrogance in all that should frighten us all. Regardless of whether we meet your masculinity definitions or not. Sorry, that one got through my fingers before I could catch it.