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: Neocon who wrote (5463)	3/12/2003 11:47:16 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

It really depends on what your definitions of "threat" and "national interests" are. (Which is a more productive use of time than trying to define what the meaning of is is. <g>) It is perfectly true that between now and March 18, Iraq is very unlikely to pose any threat to the U.S. or to our vital interests. So for those people who limit themselves to short-term thinking, who define threat as immediate (this week or month) threat and the time frame in which national interests need to be protected as the present only, there is no need for war now to prevent a threat or protect our national interests. Of course, those people were saying the same things about Germany in 1938, when it, too, did not pose an immediate threat to anybody's national interests except Checkslovakia, and of course they didn't count.