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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (549)	12/16/2002 12:29:19 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

We were discussing Bush's recent declaration that the US reserves the right to respond with "overwhelming force" to the use of WMD against the US, our forces abroad, our friends, and our allies. The question is, do you agree that it is appropriate for the US to respond to the use of WMD against the US, our forces abroad, our friends, and our allies, with overwhelming force, and in particular, with nuclear weapons? I say yes, even though it will inevitably mean that it will "kill non-Americans in massive numbers." Not that I enjoy the concept of killing anybody, American or not, in massive numbers but it's a simple fact that the use of "overwhelming force" will kill a lot of people. That's the point of overwhelming force.

To: zonder who wrote (549)	12/16/2002 12:32:20 PM
From: William B. Kohn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15987

Nothing like framing a question, you hypocrite! But in the context of the discussion, if killing many haters of America provides a means to shorten the time that the people they sponsor that hatred remain a threat to Americans, then I'm in favor of the exchange. War is hell, and it remains impossible to find conflicts where only military combatants suffer damage. Recent American military campaigns have been among the most benign in human history. In Serbia, in Afganistan, in Kosovo, it was American smart technology which saved thousands of European lives, all the while you were showing off your body on a beach in Monoco, claiming how evil America is, while doing nothing of benefit to the species. People who live in a house of cards, shouldn't blow hot air!

To: zonder who wrote (549)	12/16/2002 12:40:34 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

This may interest you - a poll on Foxnews.com, which is a conservative news outlet - 85% favor Bush's declaration to use overwhelming force in response to WMD. foxnews.com I expect the tally would come out differently in, say, Berkeley. Blue zone vs. red zone.

To: zonder who wrote (549)	12/16/2002 1:47:04 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

Message 18340542 >>I have a friend who can MAKE nukes given enough time and money, and he is 28, for crying out loud.<< Well, just tell him to be careful. He could put someone's eye out. bland@nowwheniwasakid...

To: zonder who wrote (549)	12/16/2002 2:40:27 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

It is all a matter of circumstance. If it were a case of killing massive numbers of foreigners in order to avoid even more fatalities on both sides, due to the price of a direct engagement or prolongation of a war, it would be justified. This is the situation I construe us to have been in when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If I were trading the lives of 1000 foreigners for 1000 Americans, due to a conflict brought on by the provocation of the foreign government, I would rather the 1000 foreigners die. If it were a question of killing a million enemy soldiers to save ten thousand of our soldiers, I would do it, if I could see no other way of bringing the matter to a close. If it were a case of demonstrating the will without which deterrence fails, then yes, I would retaliate with at least proportional force, and possibly worse, to the use of WMDs against our citizens. On the other hand, I do not like the idea of killing anyone, especially indiscriminately, so I would hope to avoid such dilemmas.......

To: zonder who wrote (549)	12/16/2002 3:09:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

A show of hands from CB's supporters, please, who feel "it is OK to kill non-Americans in massive numbers"... Very interesting way of framing the question Zonder... The United States killed "massive numbers" of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to the perception that it would avoid massive numbers of American soldiers from being killed were they required to invade Japan... And I feel that was perfectly justified... However, killing massive numbers of people is not necessarily the only course available.. Certainly not when technology permits us to use guided munitions to limit collateral damage. However, without the implicit threat that such a possibility exists, then opponents would factor that into any strategy they adopt in opposing the US. A threat of force must have no limitations.. Only then will it create sufficient fear in the hearts of our enemies and bring them to negotiated settlements. Personally, I believe that every President should leave such possibilities deliberately vague, granting maximum flexibility for US policy.... But Zonder.. this goes deeper than your sentiments being outraged at such statements.. Because the world is a BRUTAL place, often governed by BRUTAL UNELECTED LEADERS who got into that position of power through sheer power and BRUTAL COERCION... They have FEW qualms about exercizing such threats of inflicting massive casualities.. Saddam certainly has few qualms about the topic since he has ALREADY used chemical weapons against innocent civilians. So to tie the hands of our military and political leaders by suggesting that we would NEVER follow a particular course of action and limit our options only acts to invigorate those who know no limits... Just imagine how nasty any community would be without any police to keep the peace?? You'd be required to protect your own property, your own rights, your own family, and your own lives from everyone who would like to deprive you of them... And to do this, I can guarantee that anyone, INCLUDING YOURSELF, would take ANY STEPS NECESSARY to insure that your loved ones and everything you have worked for are protected... And for me, that means I would eliminate anyone/anything that threatens my life.. And if, in the heat of the moment (eg: firefight) an innocent person was caught in the middle and killed, it would be regrettable... But then again, if you're dead, your not able to feel remorse about anything, or anyone... That said, the US military certainly has a limited record of deliberately seeking to inflict casualities amongst innocents, if it can be avoided.. Hawk@dependsonhowyoudefineinnocents.com

To: zonder who wrote (549)	12/16/2002 4:40:48 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

zonder, on 9-11 when the MiddleEastern terrorists AGAIN declared war on America, and hit the WTC, the Pentagon and the field in PA with planes owned by US companies, they killed thousands of Americans AND several hundred non-Americans... I haven't heard you, or any from Europe really discuss your thoughts on the above. So yes, I agree with CB. If Americans have to protect themselves from murdering thugs, then I hope we do just that. Protect ALL Americans and any foreign guests we might have at the time.