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: KonKilo who wrote (104559)	7/10/2003 2:08:29 PM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi ShiloCat, Yes I lied. ...Predators and internet comedians are allowed to lie. ...It's for your own entertainment. ...And my nourishment, I guess. Now let's see where are we here: We seem to have fallen into the trap that you describe here, wherein our fears were far more worrisome than reality; ie, pre-invasion rhetoric vs lack of post-war WMD. Well yes that is one possible trap and there are others which have yet to be stated. But rather than simply assert that those "fears" were illusory, why not make an effort to consider them from the POV of the fearful. Let's say you are President Cat. You were in AF #1 dodging around the deserted skies on 9/11. ASAP you identify Afghanistan as the base of the perps, and prepare and send in the troops. Months go by and you've pretty well broken up that which passed for government in Afghanistan and sent the terrorists packing. But you - and everyone else - knows that you did not end the threat from terrorists and may in fact have stirred up additional recruits for the cause. You ask all your military and intel folk whether or not they can assure you that the threatening terrorists don't have and can be prevented from implementing WMDs. They can't or won't give you such assurance. What do you "fear" at that point and how do you see your options for addressing it/them? Doing nothing "aggressive" would certainly be one such option. But what ever it may be, believe me as an incredibly "fearful" person, I like to have my fears eliminated. Show me a viable option with some pros and cons that don't leave me in as bad or worse position than I see now and its quite likely that I and other fraidy cats will hop on board your POV. <g> But this will require some effort at being convincing as to the balance and completeness of your solution. I still may not be convinced, but generally I like having my fears eliminated and it is in fact a matter of life and death for many. It should be worth the effort shouldn't it? I think that the terms "harm" and "justification", though admittedly amorphous by definition, should be taken to their theoretic ultimates when used to discuss war. Especially when considering a never-before-used doctrine of preemptive invasion. And of course, ideally coupled with impeccable intelligence, wisely considered. Otherwise, we are just striking out blindly from fear and perhaps misplaced revenge. I really would like to delve into this a lot further. For instance you have lots of moral judgments here that infer underlying assumptions that I doubt I share, but my blabbing about them directly would require too many boring agreements, or at least understandings, on definitions. Besides any of them that matter, can be dealt with in kicking around the "fearful" President's dilemma. ...Should you choose to accept this assignment, and it is by no means required, I promise to do my best to lie only in the interests of national security. <vbg> 0\|0