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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (125582)	3/4/2004 2:24:46 AM
From: NightOwl	Respond to of 281500

*So, to sum up: Preventive wars only work for those who have Second Sight, and have perfect Intel about the future. And can predict and avoid all Unintended Consequences.* Of course one could say the same thing about any inter-national treaty or cooperative association. For the most part I think Westerners expect too much of their wars, Presidents and other endeavors - be they altruistic or criminal in nature. I think this is a result of our win/lose mentality. Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing," may yet be our undoing. Not because it's incorrect, but rather because it encourages dissatisfaction, dissent and a lack of appreciation in an open and diverse society. Conversely it seems to mandate the existence of the dreaded Special Interests, as various groups take steps to assure that their peculiar perceptions of "victory" are reflected in "Official" policy. Of course, the time honored solution to this "problem" in the West is the Benevolent Dictator. Certainly the office of the President has always been trending in that direction. From where I sit the "checks & balances" employed to prevent it are still working. ...But then again, the system hasn't really been stressed since the Civil War. I can't say that any of this has been true in the East. I suspect they may have different perceptions of winning and losing. But then their playing fields are quite different too. In any case, if after the prior 30 years you could have told me in 2002, that a "Preventive War" would eliminate the Saddam clan with a potential downside of under 2000 US casualties and a division of Iraq into three separate states, I would have asked the Pentagon if they could do it; and asked the DOJ and State if I could do it lawfully. If those answers were both affirmative I'd have said go ahead. I think I would have handled the political/diplo/economic aspects differently. But in the end, I can't say my approach would have given any better result, and may in fact have made things substantially worse. <vbg> All in all, you should consider yourself lucky I wasn't calling the shots. <Hoo><Hoo><Haa> 0\|0