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: zonder who wrote (50456)	10/9/2002 10:03:52 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It is war we are talking about here. Yes. The discussion of war advocates around here tends to be quite bloodless, but that's not likely what the operation itself will be. I imagine it will be relatively bloodless for the US, as most recent operations have been. Not likely for the other side, and quite a lot, if not most. of the blood will be shed by people who either had little personal choice in the matter (conscripts and civilians). And by all indications, hardly any of the blood will be shed by anybody who had the slightest bit to do with 9/11, or anybody who has any probability of participating in future terror attacks either. That's one reason to oppose the war. Then, there's the what happens afterward question. There's been continual handwaving about "democracy in Iraq", it's good to see occasional discussion about the difficulties that some realize are likely to occur in reality. The inner circle obviously sees the upcoming Iraqi occupation as an opportunity, not a problem. Launching pad for the next war and all that. Given history, that seems to be an overly sanguine view. If Perle and friends really see Iraq as the first step in a wider operation, involving (most likely) decades of occupation, there and elsewhere, they ought to say so. And start talking cost/benefit on a realistic level. Instead, we get Perle preaching how the newly reelected Chancellor of Germany ought to resign, 'cause he won't get with the program. "Democracy", indeed.

To: zonder who wrote (50456)	10/9/2002 10:07:38 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

The choice is not whether innocent people will die, but who, how, why, and when. Innocent people have already died. Innocent people are dying as we speak. Innocent people will die in the future, no matter what we choose. Innocent Iraqis, without doubt. If we don't kill them, Saddam will. Innocent Americans, possibly, as well. That is the nature of reality. All we can do is consider the possible paths and their possible consequences, and make the best informed decisions we can make. One beneficial consquence for the Iraqi people if we do force a regime change will be the lifting of economic sanctions, which are causing a hardship for the Iraqi people. So when you are considering the consequences, you have to consider all the options. On the one hand, war will kill people. On the other hand, sanctions and a brutally repressive regime definitely are killing people, and the potential use of WMD against Americans or allies may kill people.