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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (4633)	2/19/2003 2:03:55 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7720

"I do think one American life should weigh more than one Iraqi life, all things being equal..." If I agreed with this, which I don't, the logical conclusion would justify gradually repopulating the world with Americans. Colonization could make a big come back and genocide or political conversion of the others would be on the table. It wasn't put forward as a universal principle but rather as something the president of the US should hold to. Also it was the lives of actual Americans, not trying to increase the number of Americans through conquest and colonization. Its not a question of "the more Americans we can create the better", but rather of "the more American deaths we can avoid the better". Maybe change that to the more early and untimely American deaths we can avoid the better to deal with your statement about how we are all going to die. Tim

To: one_less who wrote (4633)	2/19/2003 3:40:09 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 7720

We spend more time looking at the fringe than we do at the core issues That we can agree on. If I agreed with this, which I don't, the logical conclusion would justify gradually repopulating the world with Americans. Well, you sure managed to "fringify" that! I said two things that you overlooked. One was "all other things being equal" and I was speaking from the perspective of the President, our president. All other things being equal, we favor our own. Imagine you were driving on the streets of DC right now where the streets are down to one lane, if any, and pedestrians are walking on the road because the sidewalks aren't clear. On one side of the lane is your daughter. On the other is a total stranger. You can't stop and you're bound to hit one or the other of them. Which way to you steer? I dare you to tell me you wouldn't steer away from your daughter. All other things being equal, anyone would.

To: one_less who wrote (4633)	2/19/2003 5:30:28 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 7720

I wish there was not bolstering and bandwagoning (by the govt and by opponents) being used to justify our position, but there is. Tell the Truth By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN As I was listening to the French foreign minister make his case at the U.N. for giving Saddam Hussein more time to comply, I was struck by the number of people in the Security Council chamber who applauded. I wish there were someone I could applaud for. Sorry, I can't applaud the French foreign minister, because I don't believe that France, which sold Saddam his first nuclear reactor, the one Israel blew up, comes to this story with the lofty principles it claims. The French foreign minister, after basking in the applause at the U.N., might ask himself who was clapping for his speech back in Baghdad and who was crying. Saddam was clapping, and all his political prisoners — i.e., most Iraqis — were crying. But I don't have much applause in me for China, Russia — or the Bush team either. I feel lately as if there are no adults in this room (except Tony Blair). No, this is not a plague-on-all-your-houses column. I side with those who believe we need to confront Saddam — but we have to do it right, with allies and staying power, and the Bush team has bungled that. The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy and terrible at diplomacy. I covered the first gulf war, in 1990-91. What I remember most are the seven trips I took with Secretary of State James A. Baker III around the world to watch him build — face-to-face — the coalition and public support for that war, before a shot was fired. Going to someone else's country is a sign you respect his opinion. This Bush team has done no such hands-on spade work. Its members think diplomacy is a phone call. They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush officials abroad for any length of time has become like rare-bird sightings. It's probably because they spend so much time infighting in Washington over policy, they're each afraid that if they leave town their opponents will change the locks on their office doors. Also, you would think that if Iraq were the focus of your whole foreign policy, maybe you would have handled North Korea with a little less attitude, so as not to trigger two wars at once. Maybe you would have come up with that alternative — which President Bush promised — to the Kyoto treaty, a treaty he trashed to the great anger of Europe. You're not going to get much support in Europe telling people, "You are either with us or against us in a war on terrorism, but in the war you care about — for a greener planet — America will do whatever it wants." I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the country to war on the wings of a lie. Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice — but it's a legitimate choice. It's because he is undermining the U.N., it's because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction. That's the case for war — and it will require years of occupying Iraq and a simultaneous effort to defuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to create a regional context for success. If done right, such a war could shrink Al Qaeda's influence — but Al Qaeda is a separate enemy that will have to be fought separately, and will remain a threat even if Saddam is ousted. It is legitimate for Europeans to oppose such a war, but not simply by sticking a thumb in our eye and their heads in the sand. It's also legitimate for the Bush folks to focus the world on Saddam, but two years of their gratuitous bullying has made many people deaf to America's arguments. Too many people today no longer accept America's strength as a good thing. That is a bad thing. Some of this we can't control. But some we can, which is why it's time for the Bush team to shape up — dial down the attitude, start selling this war on the truth, give us a budget that prepares the nation for a war abroad, not a party at home, and start doing everything possible to create a global context where we can confront Saddam without the world applauding for him.

To: one_less who wrote (4633)	2/19/2003 8:07:25 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

You forgot to add the "to the President." That's an important part of what Karen said. To the objective humanist, maybe every life should be equal. To the elected leader of a people, he had, IMO, better value the lives of the people he is sworn to defend and protect above the lives of others. That doesn't mean the lives of others are valueless, or meaningless, at all. But it does set a priority which I think the President has an obligation to observe. This particularly true of American troops vs. Iraqui troops. If we could save one American solder at the cost of 2,000 Iraqui soldiers, go for it.