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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (41002)	8/30/2002 1:50:29 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Yet another reason to oppose the neocons. That should never be the basis for foreign policy. So, nu? Would you have been a pacifist after Pearl Harbor, too? That's an interesting reply, even debating technique. Here we are discussing human rights as a basis for a ME foreign policy, you switch to killing opponents as a basis for that self same ME policy, which seems to me to be not that wise a basis, and you reply that in war time it is. Might I suggest that we stick to the topic. We were discussing the ME not WWII.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (41002)	8/30/2002 1:58:14 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

As Lileks said, I'd rather live in a Star Trek Episode. But we don't. At some point you have to start with a rational and just policy. That's why I suggested the Prime Directive in #reply-17771302 What's all this talk about Saddam's WMD? The implicit logic is they are sooo dangerous that something really has to be done about it because they could be a threat. How many US citizens have died due to Saddam's aggression in the last decade since the end of Desert Storm? Few. How many US citizens have died due to obesity, smoking, alcohol, traffic accidents (Europeans too, for that matter)? Just in the past decade millions and millions. If you want to maximize the benefit for people and prevent as many premature deaths as possible then fight these obvious, real dangers. But I guess pushing some buttons to release high-tech weapons is more fun and easier than fighting addictive habits. One more point: the speculations when Saddam might get nukes - in two, five, ten years - should consider his age. He is 65, in a decade he'll be 75! In my view it's more likely that the problem will be solved biologically before he launches another major military operation.