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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (175899)	10/3/2003 6:50:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578706

I see a missile defense as a deterrent to other nations attacking us, and not something we actually deploy. How would it deter if it isn't deployed? For the same reason Russia and the US never attacked each other. I wouldn't want to live in a world that's been nuked. Who wants the world to be nuked? I don't understand your point. If there was a war and nukes were used. "What about "enough to protect our interests", or to retaliate against those who attack us (rather then just providing a direct defense)?" Like I said, once nukes had been unleashed, I don't think life would be worth living. 1 - I wasn't talking about nukes in the above sentence. 2 - Who is pushing for use of nuclear weapons? Many missiles are nuclear tipped. 3 - If some nukes were used but the US wasn't nuked, the US would be effected but mainly economically. That may or may not be true. If its one strike, the fallout would be minor. If its a number of nukes, the results could be devastating. No one know's for sure the full consequences. Another consideration is that having more then enough to get the job done usually allows the job to be done quicker and with fewer casualties on your side and frequently even on the enemy side. How much extra is that worth to you? We have more than enough to get the job done quickly. I'm sure you know that factoid. The EU can pick up the burden and in a few years, so can Russia. NK and Japan can take care of their corner of the world. Its not necessary to shoulder the burden........Some of us keep telling us that. Why? They could pick up the burden (even if it would take them time and money to get ready to do so). But I don't think they will. They will if we withdraw. ""Pre-emptively" isn't relevant to this specific point." It has all the relevance in the world.......it would be a whole different ball game. I didn't say it isn't an important consideration, only that it isn't important to the exact point being addressed. If the attack was not preemptive the cost of rebuilding Iraq would still be a cost associated with the war. If the war hadn't been pre-emptive, there would be no rebuilding charges.......there would have been no war. If Saddam had declared war on us with no provocation on our part and then we invaded Iraq and kicked him out of power the aid will still be related to the fact that we went to war. It would still be part of the cost of the war. In the first approach, we brought the cost upon ourselves; in the latter, we had no choice. I'm sorry if you can't see the difference but many of us do very clearly. Sure I see the difference but that wasn't the point in question. The point being contended was your statement " The money we are providing Iraq to help rebuild Iraq is not foreign aid....its part of the cost of doing war because of the way we did this war......attacking pre-emptively. That statement is false. Attacking pre-emptively doesn't change the fact that the cost is associated with the war. It isn't relevant to that point. It might be relevant to a lot of other points but not to that one. Whether we brought the cost on ourselves or whether we had no choice its still a cost associated with the war. And again, there would have no war had we not attacked pre-emptively. My God, once you get on a track, you can see any other tracks. ted