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 (105208)	7/14/2003 9:54:08 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I wanted to see proof. I still want to see proof, I don't care what leaders told me they had secret knowledge, better than my own assessment- I never believe politicians- not of any stripe- not without proof. If no proof of an imminent threat is found in all those thousands of documents, will you then think that perhaps a mistake was made? Because if proof were found that (for example) Saddam was planning to nuke the US, I would change my mind about the relative merits of preemptive war. But the threat would have to be really big, and there would need to be proof. I'm not sure I'd feel really comfortable about after the fact proof- but at least it would be something for me to hang onto, in order to justify a new evaluation, and a change of heart. I have always felt that if you act violently to "preempt" something- you should be really really sure you actually know what you are preempting. Because otherwise, it looks quite a bit like an excuse to do whatever you want, sans ethical/legal limits.