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 : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1259)	3/13/2003 4:44:23 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 7936

Germany attacked Poland. Poland had a mutual defense treaty with the UK and France, who had not been attacked by Germany at that time. Nevertheless, France and and the UK declared war on and later entered Germany with military forces, thereby violating Germany's soveeirgnty. By thames's argument, the fault in this matter lies entirely with the UK and France for their attack on Gemany. For some reason, previous actions by Germany must be disregarded. Let me first say this issue has gotten very confused with the discussion having moved between two threads and circulated among 4-5 people. Having said that, I don't think Thames is disregarding the argument re previous actions, but rather he's saying its a very weak one, a view that's held almost universally outside the US. Its weak because it argues that past behavior is not changeable and therefore, the nation warrants a preemptive strike. Dictators use it all the time but we are not used to seeing democracies take that stand. However, as Tim pointed out, the main support behind Bush's current argument to strike now is that Iraq has violated the ceasefire agreement. Using their past behavior as motivation has become less important. ted

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (1259)	3/13/2003 4:47:34 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Germany attacked Poland. Poland had a mutual defense treaty with the UK and France, who had not been attacked by Germany at that time. Nevertheless, France and and the UK declared war on and later entered Germany with military forces, thereby violating Germany's soveeirgnty. By thames's argument, the fault in this matter lies entirely with the UK and France for their attack on Gemany. For some reason, previous actions by Germany must be disregarded. Let me first say this issue has gotten very confused with the discussion having moved between two threads and circulated among 4-5 people. Having said that, I don't think Thames is disregarding the argument re previous actions, but rather he's saying its a very weak one, a view that's held almost universally outside the US. Its weak becuase it argues that past behavior is not changeable and therefore, the nation warrants a preemptive strike. Dictators use it all the time but we are not used to seeing democracies take that stand. However, as Tim pointed out, the main support behind Bush's current argument to strike now is that Iraq has violated the ceasefire agreement. Using their past behavior as motivation has become less important. ted