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: John Carragher who wrote (119076)11/10/2003 9:46:00 AM
From: Sun Tzu  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
What bothers me about discussions of invading Iraq is the lack of clarity. People bring about all sorts of reasons ranging from humanitarianism to anti-terrorism to WMD. Each of these reasons seems viable at the first glance but fails deeper analysis. There seems to be a feeling on the part of the supporters of war that a bit of this plus a bit of that equals a lot of something. Whereas I think adding up a lot of half reasons does not equal a good reason. Frankly if Bush had come out (either in person or even by proxy via Jeb) and made a good case for how after all the expenses and pros and cons we will be better off invading Iraq, then I would have been ok with this.

For example, if he had said the idea is to move our troops from Saudi to Iraq and have Iraq fill the void that Shah of Iran used to fill, and if he had made a case as to how long and how much this would cost and how we'd deal with the most likely problems, then if his plan had been approved by the congress I would have been ok. Then Like it or not I'd have respected the democratic process. But jumping around from one reason to another without making a conclusive case for any of them and using 9/11 as a blank check does not win me over.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext