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: Just_Observing who wrote (7033)	2/10/2003 12:13:14 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 25898

Just because he may share his weapons is no justification for an attack 'Course it is.....we are not going to wait for another 9/11...a most prudent policy....

To: Just_Observing who wrote (7033)	2/10/2003 12:14:48 PM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Past wrongs don't justify not following current or future rights. The US history is not ideal when it comes to supporting Saddam till late 1980s. It was far from ideal before 1970s wrt blacks and before that with women. These are not justifications for doing the right thing now and in the future. Yes, tragic mistakes were made in the name of fighting communism. This does not justify not acting now. Otherwise, by the same token, racism, misoginy should be acceptable. Also, no one is going to kill 500,000 people to get rid of Saddam. If that happens, I will be with you condemning the US administration. Civilian casualties must be kept at a minimum. But, in wartime, it may be hard to do so. Again, the onus of that lies on saddam.

To: Just_Observing who wrote (7033)	2/10/2003 12:18:15 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 25898

Just because he may share his weapons is no justification for an attack. That is an opinion, stated as if fact. Certainly, many of us in New York City share a different philosophical perspective with respect to the morality, logic, and value of preemptive military action. Do you give Iran the right to attack the US? Certainly. The difference is...and that which makes all the difference, as I see it...is our enemies' willingness to (indeed, intentional) striking at our civilian populace. If Iran saw fit to fly their massive, powerful air force across the Middle East, Northern Africa and the Atlantic Ocean to attempt to strike at our military bases in response to our aiding an enemy of theirs, what could anyone possibly say? LPS5