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 (136359)	6/12/2004 12:55:09 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) of 281500

<<< What part of this argument seems far-fetched to you, or has become invalidated by new information?>>> Within six degrees of separation, you could link anyone to anything. Many people thought, and we now know, there was nobody in Iraq planning to invade or attack the United States. At least no more than there are people in England that were planning an attack on the United States. But, I am not sure of that now. There was no reason why we had to rush to war against Iraq. Sanctions were working. Who was going to stop us from enforcing the no fly zone? Nobody was ever going to let Saddam off the hook. He was going nowhere. He was contained. He was not ever going to do more damage to us than what we have done to us (ourselves) in rushing to war. Was it ever likely that the UNSC would ever side with Saddam against us? No way. Not even the Chinese would be that stupid. Could the Russians have been won over? Could the French have been put in a position where they would have to choose to side with us or with Saddam? (not going along with everything we want done, is not the same thing as siding with Saddam against us).

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next