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: steve dietrich who wrote (153307)	12/3/2004 11:16:11 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

"Wars should be a last resort. Otherwise, they could be avoided. A good litmus test for politicians, like Bush, would be; Is this war so necessary that I would be willing to go fight it or send my son or daughter? If the answer is no, then they should not be so quick to send someone else's son our daughter to do the dirty work." One large cliche, steve. Sure it should be a last resort. Depends on how you define the threat. Saddam broke the rules he was under so when do you go? Would 3 months later have made you more happy. I doubt it. And on your other point no parent ever wants his kids to die. One does everything they can to protect them. War is always gut renching. Its all about policy, not about these emotional strawmen you throw up re: last resort and would you send your kids. Lets judge it dispassionately on its merits. With what i knew, i was for this war. With 20/20 hindsight, I probably would have taken quite another path. From here on, we sort of agreed on how to proceed after elections, if things hadnt gotten any better. I refuse to allow my emotions to be involved and i as you grieve for every life lost except those of the terrorists of course. mike

To: steve dietrich who wrote (153307)	12/6/2004 9:03:00 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Wars should be a last resort. Not always. Wars are always bad but sometimes the alternative is worse. Sometimes if you wait you get war anyway and the war is worse when it happens. A good litmus test for politicians, like Bush, would be; Is this war so necessary that I would be willing to go fight it or send my son or daughter? There isn't much call for people GW's age to attack terrorist in Fallujah. As for sending a son or daughter the ideas is silly they are not sent by the parents they have to join the military themselves. Military aged people are adults there parents can not force them to join. If Barbara or Jenna Bush were in the military I don't think that would change GW's military policy much, but that's just a guess I don't know him personally. Tim