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: KLP who wrote (105057)	7/13/2003 3:21:35 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

It is not "ok" to be hit first, but as everyone knows, when using "self defense" one needs to be reacting to something more than mind reading. Thus even though it is not "ok", one needs to wait for the hit, in order to ethically/legally respond (and logically respond- I can't say I want you wandering around hitting people you guess are going to hit you first- you might not be a good guesser.) Sometimes "okness" is not the standard on which you can hang foreign policy and international law and relations. If I punch you because I thought you were going to hit me, I'm not going to fair very well in court- and I should not. 9-11 did not change this. 9-11 did not make us better mind readers. In order to appear to act in self defense we must wait for something to defend. (We'd have had a better reason to attack the Saudis, but even then, I'd have wanted the UN with us. That is not an unreasonable position- no matter what the pro-war people here say about it.) We provide best for the common defense by setting international precedents that make sense. Preemptive war will not make the world safer- wait until the Chinese use it, and the Russians... What will we say? "Do as we say, not as we do"? That never plays very well. And the president has many jobs- you forget one of the most important- supporting the constitution.... Did you forget? In case you did: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."