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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig Richards who wrote (82947)	3/17/2003 11:06:57 AM
From: Sig	Respond to of 281500

Craig: <<< Is the statement "Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US" true or false? I think many people would evaluate this differently depending on if they have a pre-9/11 perspective or a post-9/11 perspective. If the statement was absolutely true, then its truth would not depend on perspective. Another statement, such as "Country X is a force for justice in the world", may be evaluated differently by a citizen of country X and a citizen of a country that was being attacked by country X. So once again the truth or falsity of the statement is relative, not absolute.>>> Definitely. And the Eastern perspective would be different than ours. If a killer is caught here after a crime is he still a clear and present danger? The assumption is that he is , so he is tried, locked up and in some cases scheduled for execution depending on the seriousness of the crime In some Western Nations, they just skip steps 2 and 3, go direct to the execution. But in both cases he is assumed to be a clear and present threat based upon what he did in the past Since Saddam started wars with two nations, he would be a considered a clear and present danger to them and the "present" would include the near future Do wars with WMD's between Iraq and Iran or Iraq and Kuwait represent a danger to the US ? They certainly would if they start using biotoxins, anthrax, smallpox, etc which could spread worldwide. The US position is yes and something should be done if he refuses to account for the 1000 tons of WMD's he may still have The French position is that Saddam is also a threat, but they will try to be nice to Saddam, retain their oil contracts, add to the 11000 Mosques in France to stay on the good side of the Muslims, and hope to G-- Saddam hits somebody else first, while counting on the US to defend them if he doesn't behave In which case the French and American perspectives do have a variance as you noted. Sig