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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: epicure who wrote (23619)7/27/2003 9:42:22 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (3) of 89467
 
Because Osama wanted a classic conflict between the West and Islam- and we have been trying our darndest to give him what he wanted (imo).

No argument. I could have made that statement.

I think we should have concentrated on better coordination in our intelligence services, and intelligence services and local law enforcement, and better security for vulnerable sectors. It would have been much cheaper than invading Iraq, more logical, and (imo) much more effective.

Again no argument. But this is just the defensive side of the equation.

I don't see why people continue to mention 911 and Iraq in the same breath. It makes no sense at all.

Ask the PNAC, not me. In no way did I say (or mean to imply) that 9-11 "justified" the Iraq War. I did present a scenario of how an Example might stimulate a change to prevent future "9-11s".

In the ME I think the better course would have been to wait- as I already said, for either of the sensible triggers to invasion ...

I understand you would prefer "to wait" on any change in Iraq. That still leaves my question about whether you think any action should be under taken in the Middle East to stimulate change in that moribund region? And if so what action?

Still wondering.

lurqer
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext