Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (102198)	6/20/2003 7:05:30 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) of 281500

a) Containment was coming apart. The status was was untenable On the contrary, it appears now that containment was extremely viable, if an absence of WMD was the goal. b) Bush determined to go to the UN. c) Bush decided to kick-start the UN and give inspections their only chance of working by planting an army on Iraq's borders. Why do you suppose Bush chose to kick-start the UN? Was it because he was determined to invade, regardless? d) Armies cannot sit without degenerating (not to mention the cost!) This is a curious argument. Do they degenerate during peacetime too? And please do not demean the human costs that have been paid since, by bringing up mere money. e) The choice was war immediately, or ignominious withdrawal with Saddam still in power and in possession of his secrets. One does not have to withdraw that which was never placed, thus averting ignomy. The rationalizations for invasion never smelled right then and they stink worse now. Democracy is about processes. No amount of spin will save this one, it was wrong.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next