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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (579)	4/1/2003 1:39:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7833

I still have not understood how you support this war knowing full well the dangers it will lead to In any scenario, the status quo is the default. Simple inertia if nothing else. If you are at peace, you need to make a compelling argument to start a war. If you are at war, you need to make a compelling argument to stop the war. The onus is always on those who want to move counter to momentum and change the status quo to provide the compelling argument. One of the reasons I do not approve of this war is that a compelling argument for it was not made by the hawks, IMO. OTOH, neither have I heard a compelling argument for stopping it in light of the damage that has already been done and that cannot be undone plus the new risks that come with backing out. One might argue that, since there wasn't a compelling reason for starting the war, there does not need to be a compelling reason for stopping it. Or one might argue that peace is good and war is bad so a compelling argument to stop a war is not needed. But that kind of thinking ignores the question of inertia and momentum. The powers that be have us on a roll. We're implementing the war plan, full speed ahead. You can't stop that with anything short of compelling. Sad, maybe, but reality nonetheless. In summary, 1) the war won't be stopped, 2) there's no compelling reason to think that we would be better off if the war were stopped, and 3) protesting it gives comfort to the enemy. So I have no choice but to support it--other than curling up into a fetal ball, that is. Certain damages are already done but others are not. We are in agreement about that. The question remains whether, by retreating, we increase or decrease our risks. I have gone back over my list of Pandora's boxes to try to assess that, and it's not clear. My musings do not rise to the level of analysis. It was easy to evaluate the Administrations plans because there were a lot of good commentaries being written by those who were not persuaded that war was a good idea. That kind of writing provides some expertise and information and some ideas against which you can bounce your own. I have not seen a word written about how stopping the war might play out, nothing to stimulate and correct my own thinking. Nothing. So I'm left to evaluate the question primarily from the angle of which locusts might be herded back into their boxes and which are out for good. But the metrics have changed and that isn't good enough. By the way, assuming that all who want to attack the US are "mad" greatly diminishes the accuracy of the analysis. By the way, back atcha: I don't assume any such thing. You read that into my message. I mentioned the "mad Islamists who would attack us." I did not speak to the sane Islamists who would attack us, the sane Islamists who would not attack us, or the mad Islamists who would not attack us. Or the mad or sane non-Islamists who would or would not attack us. I think that terrorists who are mad are particularly frightening because they cannot be swayed by facts or reason and their behavior is harder to anticipate, hence my focus on them.