SI
SI
discoversearch

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
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (36094)8/6/2002 6:58:56 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
That's effectively the bottom line here.

Well, the bottom line here is that attacking another nation is not a macho exercise. Not an issue of so-called moral clarity.

A short list of reasons: (1) no one has offered a sensible plan for what follows and Phebe Marr's argument was, my own view, that none would be offered because the most plausible, long term occupation, would not work and is certainly not the way the US does these things; (2) attacking another country without provocation or serious multilateral agreement--the UN--is devastating foreign policy; (3) the neocons who now run the defense establishment have war as a kind of blood lust right now, just to be blunt; and (4) it was Al Qaeda that attacked the US on 9-11 (well, thinking as I type, even if you take Nadine's formualation that it's really Islamism that attacked us, that still does not get us Saddam--the major candidates to replace Saddam are Islamists).

But you don't seem interested in a conversation. Just testosterone comparisons.

Have a good day.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News