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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bridge Player who wrote (61187)	4/23/2008 7:25:48 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542109

>>Would it be unfair to point out that we did do a pretty good job of obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Including more than a few innocent children and civilians. In a war. In order to save the lives of Americans which otherwise would have been lost in a Japanese invasion. My guess is that a pretty high percentage of Americans today approve of that historic act.<< BP - We also firebombed every major city in Japan, except for Kyoto and Tokyo (I think that's right) killing far more civilians of both sexes and all ages than the atomic bombs did. Don't forget the firebombing of Dresden, either. I don't know if the majority of Americans approve of those acts, but I don't. I don't think there's ever a valid excuse to kill innocent people, war or no. - Allen

To: Bridge Player who wrote (61187)	4/24/2008 10:06:34 AM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542109

Please explain to me and I am not being factitious.. We have the most weaponry of any nation on earth. We have silos with atom bombs ready to strike any country. They are maintained around the clock. Why would any nation in what might be called common sense choose to strike us knowing our retaliatory power ? This is something that I have never understood. I think it's a case of the weaker student trying to have a sling shot so if the bigger kid attacks him he might have a chance. The only country I would worry about is Israel..However, I think that not only are they well fortified but they have us to back them up. AND what leader in his right might would want a world conflagration... where he stands to loose his entire population.... We talk as though we should be afraid but I suspect it's just to keep the rhetoric going to scare us all.

To: Bridge Player who wrote (61187)	4/24/2008 10:21:25 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542109

Disregarding the Israel question for the moment. Why would a nation advanced enough to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon sell it to a terrorist group? It's not like terrorists are known for being particularly trustworthy ("Cross our hearts and swear to die, we promise that after you give us the weapon we won't use it to blackmail you into giving us our money back"). Also a nation that sells a nuclear weapon obviously no longer has that weapon available for use ... it's not as if viable nuclear weapons are in plentiful supply. Finally, a nation would have to be incredibly stupid to believe that we could not trace the weapon back to them ... there is no such thing as a generic nuclear weapon ... and the price they would pay is the devastation of all its military capabilities. The problem I have with many of the arguments over middle eastern nations is that they are premised on the conclusion that the people of the nation are 1. inhuman 2. incredibly stupid 3. not interested in self-preservation Since all evidence indicates that those assertions are NOT the case, why even bother with an argument that depends on them? I see no reason to believe that Iranians do not love their children ... so why should I believe that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of those children to launch an ineffectual attack on the U.S.??