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: paul_philp who wrote (89153)	4/2/2003 11:30:10 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There is no moral case because war is not a moral issue. It is a strategic issue and the decisions are ruthless. The swelling music and waving flags help divert our attention from this hard truth. The most serious problem with this argument is that populations go to war for moral reasons, whatever their leadership believes. Thus, the logic of morality is crucial to the consideration of war.

To: paul_philp who wrote (89153)	4/2/2003 11:37:02 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Paul you never fail to amaze me. There is an angry but honest person in you. Now if Bush&Co had come up and said what you just said instead of using FUD, then we could get on with some constructive debate. I'll get back to your points later.

To: paul_philp who wrote (89153)	4/2/2003 11:44:51 AM
From: Condor	Respond to of 281500

The strategic issues, broadly understood, are the only considerations. The reason why the US is at war with Iraq is that Iraq's neighbors sit on a massive supply of oil AND Iraq keeps developing WMD AND Iraq with WMD could easily control all that oil AND Iraq might provide those weapons to our terrorist enemies. The goals are: - secure the supply of oil from the middle east; and, - cut off a source of funding and weapons to our enemies; and, - provide enough military and economic threat to have leverage in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. All other objectives, removing a tyrant, installing democracy, transforming the region, etc... are derived from one of those two goals. There is no moral case because war is not a moral issue. It is a strategic issue and the decisions are ruthless. The swelling music and waving flags help divert our attention from this hard truth. I appreciate the logic of this opinion. Good post.

To: paul_philp who wrote (89153)	4/2/2003 12:10:46 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 281500

That's fine, Paul. But: Now you get to go through these answers, claim the moral high ground and ridicule people at the same time. I thought that was the bloviating pundits' job. "Moral Clarity" wasn't invented on the left. And all the stories about W's religious certitude weren't the invention of the "liberal media" either. As tightly as this administration handles things, they were obviously put out there for a reason. I would be happy if people actually wanted to discuss geopolitics at a realistic level around here. I don't think the PNAC program in its full glory is particularly realistic, but that's another story. Instead, you can look back at how many messages were generated over the past day from people insistent on turning a sad and tragic accident into yet another piece of wartime propaganda. That's life.

To: paul_philp who wrote (89153)	4/2/2003 6:24:59 PM
From: quehubo	Respond to of 281500

Paul I think you have just outlined my understanding of the administrations basis for resuming hostilities with Iraq.

To: paul_philp who wrote (89153)	4/2/2003 7:26:30 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<the idea of a 'moral war' is an intellectual conceit> I find your defense of the NeoCon position to be the most honest, and (my guess) the closest to reality. You strip away all the romantic nonsense, the SeeNoEvil mythology, that surrounds and cloaks the NeoCon agenda. You aren't fooled by your own side's propaganda. <The goals are: - secure the supply of oil from the middle east> "Blood for oil", just like the antiwar protestor's signs say. <- cut off a source of funding and weapons to our enemies> I'll make a prediction: Regime Change in Iraq increases the flow of funding and weapons to our enemies. What's going to happen here, is exactly what happens after we spray defoliant on a marijuana field in Mexico. The demand for the drug is unchanged, so the growers just move over to the adjacent field, or adjacent province, or adjacent country. The supply that is produced and brought to market, is controlled wholly by the market demand. And every picture of dead Iraqi women and children increases the demand for terrorism against the U.S. <- provide enough military and economic threat to have leverage in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria> I'll make another prediction: we lose leverage in those countries, as a result of conquering Iraq. They respond to our threats, our unlimited ambitions, by adopting a siege mentality, and arming themselves with every weapon they can get. Whatever modest anti-terrorism help we got from those nations, after 9/11, goes away. The more we threaten, the more anti-american they become, in word and deed. If, a year from now, we have established something that looks approximately like a democracy in Iraq, and gotten the other nations in the region to quit supporting terrorism, and the "road map" for Israili/Arab peace is on track, then I will end up sounding like you. On the other hand, if my predictions happen, then you are going to be sounding like me, because you'll realize the NeoCon methods are achieving the exact opposite of what was promised. Deal?