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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (4417)	1/29/2003 8:51:31 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

I don't think so, Robert. If what you're saying is true, he would have used his weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War. He didn't. However, if he feels he's threatened and that he'll die, if he has such weapons, well, then he might use them. On a scale of competing harms would such a war be worth it, especially given results can come from continued inspections? Instead of beefing up the war, why not beef up the inspections? Why not work toward conditions in the world that would make the terrorists moot? Why not make it more difficult for old terrorists to recruit young terrorists? Is it old soldiers who die young, or young ones? Well, that's what happens in war. And then there is the matter of Saddam's victims, innocent civilians, who will themselves suffer the most deaths should the war happen. 1) Would such a war be just? 2) Have all remedies become exhausted? 3) On a scale of competing harms would conducting the war make matters worst for people?