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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (42686)	12/6/2005 11:58:02 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"His egregious violations of the cease fire agreement established he continued to be a threat." I don't think anyone thinks that SH and many other countries were not hostile and "a threat" to the U.S. (and to many other countries). But the claim of self defense and reasonable force does not rest on mere declaration. Hell, if that were the case then the UN and the U.S. could have invaded Iraq immediately instead of applying sanctions and struggling for years to do what was legally and morally correct. And if that were the case, then the UN and/or the U.S. could immediately invade Iran and N. Korea and God knows who because these regimes are DEFINITELY "threats". Again, I don't think there is a lot of controversy over whether or not SH was a bad guy or whether or not he was a "threat". But what is the threshold of "threat" that would morally justify prophylactic action? What actions are adequate to address what levels of threat? Does the educated community agree on the immediacy of the danger from SH? Does the educated community agree that invasion and occupation was the ONLY legitimate response? Do rational people find consensus that invasion and occupation and sacrifice of American lives was the BEST response. In spite of the intransigence of Moscow and Paris, would a multilateral approach have better served American interests in the long run? Was Iraq's weaponry so advanced that utmost haste was required? These are all legitimate questions for fair-minded and rational people--whether or not they matter to you.