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 : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (67211)	12/23/2002 9:18:56 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 70976

"So the question, in my humble opinion, is not to embark on a futile quest to try and prevent other countries from having nukes. It is to make sure that whoever uses WMDs like nukes, chemicals, or biological weapons will be burnt ten times worse. " Interesting statement. So when the Iraqis used wmd on the iranians, should the world have used 10x the amount of chemical wespons on iraqi targets or perhaps anthrax or nukes. Living in a world like that sure appeals to me. But in your world since all leaders are sane and rational except Bush, there is no chance of this happening. You are too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. We were inches away from nuclear war. It was only after the CMC that the hotline was installed and balance of terror began to work. As far as Saddam goes, he will be as reckless as he can be until it is proved to him that he is wrong. So if we appease him now, we will just face a stronger version years from now. Can't you even see the possibility of this. I can see the possibility of your solution working. mike

To: zonder who wrote (67211)	12/23/2002 12:07:15 PM
From: Fred Levine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

I'm back, but briefly. Z--I thought your post was terrific. However, it is my contention that there is a war going on. Not only do we have the WTC, but we have scuds at Israel, an attack on Iran, Halabja, and Kuwait-- and the reports that Saddam unleased the West Nile virus on NY. In addition, there are the endless attacks of terrorism all over the world. And, it is my contention that religion is one of the prime bases for the war. I know you agree with that. I'm personally delighted that we have the inspectors in Iraq and I know that there was a cost to the US for bullying the world. However--IMO--having the inspectors in Iraq will prevent war and not provoke war. I just want Saddam neutralized and let the Iraqis run their country the way they want. I do feel that we need to have a dominance of international law so that future Halabjas don't occur, and that may require force or threat of force to prevent ethnic cleansing We don't know now who's correct. I don't want to see a war in Iraq without clear and compelling reasons, and I agree with you that we haven't seen them ---yet. We will see if the inspectors neutralize Saddam in a peaceful manner. I think they will. I also am convinced that the inspectors would not be there without the US threat of force. Back to disease-- Yes I do have TB and have had it since I can remember. My scratch test is positive and histological studies have shown that the test indicates the presence of the bacillis --usually in spore (and therefore harmless) form. The test had previously been interpreted to mean that I had exposure to the bug, but studies have shown that the scratch results are reversible with massive amounts of medication. We all have pathogens in our body, including cancer cells. That does not define the existence of a disease. Therefore, when you say that the pathogen is the cause of a disease, it is a gross simplification. Given a controlled exposure to virtually any pathogen, some people will be immune while others will succumb. Therefore, the causality is not merely the presence of the pathogen, but the condition of the immune system. There are a multitude of influences on the immune system--e.g., genetics, nutrition, exercise. I agree with you that the pathogen is the necessary condition for the disease, but is is hardly the sufficient condition. Causality is frequently defined as the necessary and sufficient conditions for an event to occur. BTW--even that simple definition is subject to intense dispute. In addition, back to Mike's point, since determining causality is difficult, intervention is frequently done without consideration of causality. If one has hypertension, many medications reduce blood pressure even tho the cause may have many sources. In fact, until very recently--the molecular revolution-- there was no theory in pharmacology. Most drugs were discoved by serendipity. Look at the use of lithium. It calmed people in the manic stage and we still don't know why. Electric shock treatment also has an impressive data base, but it's still referred to as a "mystery within a mystery". fred

To: zonder who wrote (67211)	12/30/2002 4:18:48 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

<< </Perhaps, if this world is to survive, there can be no longer such a thing as a country’s “internal affairs” in the traditional meaning> That is, of course, nonsense. There will always be "internal affairs" of a country where the US will not be able to poke his nose into short of an all-out invasion and installment of its own "friendlies". </Perhaps, thugocracies and dictatorships must be made illegal> . Right. I would love to see you try and argue that in an international platform. <g> >> Zonder: We are in agreement that achieving an ‘agreement’ is not the purpose of these discussions… I am not trying to convince you to change your mind in any way… Are you? -g. The problem is not just the nukes… It is the fact that weapons have advanced to a point when anyone who controls them has – by old standards – superhuman power. Unless we are able to develop a new framework of international relations and cooperation, this world is probably doomed. Those traditional historical “international platforms” a la UN give us no hope. They’ll keep flapping their mouths until it will be way too late. The world has changed. In the end, it doesn’t have to be – and it will probably not be – an American dictatorship, or an “empire”, but we’ll have to find a framework which will not allow crazies to have the potential to destroy continents.