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: art slott who wrote (55032)	10/27/2002 6:05:23 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Kelly is pretty shrill (not unusual for him). Some liberals have acknowledged that there is a humanitarian case for a war on Iraq - Hitchens and Chait come to mind. Most however, seem hung up on of of two lines of reasoning: 1. Only altruistic foreign policy can be moral, e.g. Somalia could be moral since we had no conceivable interests there. Since a war on Iraq is in US interests, it becomes a "War for Big Oil", so it must be immoral. 2. The US has done bad stuff in the past (fill in the Latin American country of your choice here), and even supported Saddam in the 80's, so a war on Iraq must be decried as "hypocritical". Apparently, foreign policies are never allowed to change, and US behavior may never improve, certainly not with a Republican administration. Concentrate on one of those two lines of thinking, and the conditions of Iraqis will never enter into the picture. To my mind, both these lines of thinking don't even deserve to be called wrong; they are just kneejerk reactions. It's one thing not to trust the Bush administration, but to dismiss all evidence about Saddam so that you can insist that Bush is real threat is absurd.

To: art slott who wrote (55032)	10/27/2002 6:25:28 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Why do liberals refuse to acknowledge that there is a humanitarian case for a U.S.-led war against Saddam? By Michael Kelly WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP Still in need of an editor to reduce the hyperventilation problem. It obviously takes a heavy breathing conservative columnist to tell the "liberals" what a moral argument is because, thanks to their ineptitude, they can only come up with perversions. But, as it turns out, this argument perverts liberal and moral values.