Politics for Pros- moderated 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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: michael97123 who wrote (6029)	8/27/2003 7:29:39 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) of 793622

Basically your argument appears to be that the ends justify the means. Good thing nobody used that on us when we were conducting our series of wars against the American Indians. WMDs appear to me to be strictly a diversion as an issue. The US has WMDs. THe UK does. France does. Russia does. India does. Pakistan does. Israel does. NK does. Do we attack all if them (including ourselves) for possession? The differentiating issue that has been advanced are two: Likelihood of use against the US and likelihood of slipping them to terrorists. Certainly NK has to rank rather high on the first measure. They actually did threaten to use nukes on the US. And it is hardly inconceivable that they would be happy to help out anti-US terrorist groups. Yet they get essentially ignored and Iraq gets all the attention. Why? The one issue I would accept as justifying military action would be involvement in 911. That's why Pakistan was attacked. If you have evidence convicting Iraq, present it. I'll change my mind in a heartbeat.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next