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: D. Long who wrote (47825)	9/29/2002 9:51:17 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your discussion of "imminent" threat here, Derek, leaves me a bit confused. You start with the UN, move to "traditions of international relations," then jump to the 19th century and the Mexican War and the Civil War. One of the things Cohen focuses on in his recent book is Lincoln's desire to make certain the South attacked first. And thus manuevered the Ft. Sumter situation to so insure. But he was not concerned with any of the above, only making certain he had as much support in the North as possible. That is the most important variable, just what will populations support.

To: D. Long who wrote (47825)	9/29/2002 11:48:17 AM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I do not presume to be able to say I know of any single interpretation of "immenant threat", only that this seems to be the standard that countries, or people for that matter, are held to if they intend to have their actions seen as self-defense. For example, my mother is afraid of black people. If armed with a pistol, and if she was informed that she could kill anybody who made her feel threatened in some vague sense, she would kill a lot of people. I expect that India would have a good case against Pakistan based on the level of threat we are applying to Iraq. I think you could say the same of Israel in relation to most of its neighbors. Both India and Israel are nuclear powers and it would seem logical that if nothing is off-limits that both of these countries should simply wipe-out their neighbors in "self-defense" first strike. During the cold-war, both the Soviet Union and the United States could have justified a nuclear first-strike as "self-defense". In all cases, the logic seems to be that if you expect that your enemy is using a first-strike self-defense logic, then you are being threatened and should employ a first-strike self-defense attack before they do. I would like to know if you see it the same way.