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: Road Walker who wrote (181622)	1/27/2004 12:47:45 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1589189

The fact that Iraq is unilateral demonstrates that there is not a compelling threat. I don't think it demonstrates anything of the sort. By saying this I'm not asserting that there was a compelling immediate threat. I don't think that all of our traditional allies will always support action when there is a compelling threat. Is the monetary and human cost significant? Does it have significance yes but so does 20+million freed Iraqis and the removal of Saddam and other possible but less certain benefits. Is transparency important? I think transparency is generally good, and I agree with you that this administration has been less transparent then it could be. Its far from the only administration to be non-transparent about important issues but "everyone else is doing it" isn't an excuse. Yes there is, and it's expedient, especially with this administration. Otherwise Bush would be in Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan... Those are all very different situations. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (181622)	1/27/2004 12:55:32 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1589189

JF, The fact that Iraq is unilateral demonstrates that there is not a compelling threat. No, it means there is a disagreement over the extent of the threat. If there was a serious threat to the US and/or our traditional allies, don't you (seriously, no crap) believe that NATO would have been on board? Not necessarily. They might not see what we see (assuming we have a competent CIA doing its job), or they could be conciously denying there is a threat for whatever reason, whether it be economic or political. Is the monetary and human cost significant? If not to you, it is to me. It is to me too. The difference is that I think it's worth it. But I have also expressed my desire to see us out of there ASAP, even if it means letting the U.N. have more autonomy. If we're going to repair the damage from being so unilateral, we might start with trusting other nations to do the right thing. Is there a double standard and is it OK? Yes there is, and it's expedient, especially with this administration. Otherwise Bush would be in Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Sudan... You were the one that was shocked that an organization demonstrated "double standards". You tell me if a consistent standard is important for this administration. We can't be GloboCop, so we'll need to apply our standards selectively. That's just the nature of foreign policy. What reason does HRW have when they apply their standard selectively? Human rights are human rights; there should be no double-standard. Tenchusatsu