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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (173952)	4/3/2003 12:37:57 AM
From: Barry Grossman	Respond to of 186894

John, <<re: Where did I talk about justification for the war? I read justification into the following: "We Americans have very high ideals of freedom, liberty and justice and because of that, we have a lot of problems in this world. That doesn't mean we should change our ideals. Sometimes we have to defend them." Pardon if my assumption was wrong.>> It was. Defending our ideals doesn't mean we go to war in order to defend them. War becomes the ultimate choice when all other means have failed and our national security is threatened. <<re: What I think is that we have the right to defend our national security and that is what I think we are doing in Iraq. I guess you don't. We have different views on national security it seems to me. Now you are talking about justification, right?>> Right! <<Of course I think we have "the right" to defend our national security. I think we have the obligation. In the course of thing as they were going, the government and people of Iraq posed absolutely no threat to our national security. SH wasn't prone to terrorism, the nation was essentially neutered by it's economic and political isolation.>> We totally disagree on this point! <<Now I think that has probably changed. I think that we are much more likely, in the decades to come, to be a victim of an freshly converted Iraqi terrorist.>> Were we threatened by German terrorists after WW2? How about Japanese terrorists? The terrorists I believe that will want to see harm done to us are less likely to be Iraqis than others. In fact, a new Iraq could be a shining example of what freedom and benevolence can accomplish. We will not abolish jealousy and religious hatred with a victory over the SH regime but we can assist in the establishment of a government in the Middle East that will bring that more tranquillity to that region than exists today. <<We were/are threatened much more by a dozen other countries.>> I respectfully disagree. The threats posed by the unnamed other countries you refer to are not in the same category as Iraq, with the possible exception of Korea. Korea, however, even though it possesses WMD, has not yet used them. Their willingness to use them as a bargaining chip is still a matter for discussion and negotiation. With SH, the negotiating and diplomacy ended. <<What was the administrations fixation on Iraq?>> WMD in the hands of SD and his willingness to use them on his neighbors and to provide them to terrorists who want to use them on us. <<We celebrate the saving of one life; are we equally morning the deaths of the 11 other folks found at the same location? How about all the other young kids that have died. The many times more Iraqi civilians, whose only crime was trying to get by in a miserable country. The odds of an American dying in a terrorist attack are ~97,000,000 to one. We've got ~120,000 kids in Iraq, ~50 have died, so far. Probably the odds of an American dying of an Iraqi terrorist attach, before this thing started, was 0 in whatever trillion.>> I feel awful that any life is lost. The ones I feel most sorry for are the innocent victims put in harms way by SH's attempt to shield his soldiers or weapons. I also feel very sorry for those who lose their lives forced to defend a corrupt fascist regime because of intimidation and coercion and the threat to their own existence. Our soldiers took voluntary oaths to do what they do but many of the Iraqi soldiers are just involuntary victims themselves. Not all of them, those who defend him out of principle deserve their fate. <<So on we go. What is the next threat to our national security? Korea, Iran? Saudi Arabia is as guilty as any for 9/11. How about China, Venezuela; those Columbian terrorist are worse than any that Iraq has produced. In a GWB go it alone, who cares about anyone, black & white world, post-NATO and post-UN, where do you draw the line? What's the agenda and how long do you support it?>> The agenda is to rid the world of insane possessors of WMD. That will remain the agenda as long as such a condition exists. Barry