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: Lane3 who wrote (50648)	6/19/2004 12:37:15 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) of 793970

I understand that point but it still seems shaky to me. By that reasoning, it would be even more important for us to take Iran right now. I don't see that in the works. Why does that principle apply only to Iraq? Because it's a rationalization, not a reason, that's why. This belongs to the species of arguments that assert that because we can't tackle all problems, we must tackle none. Iraq was doable then, Iran wasn't. It would also not have been very practical to try an invasion of Iran, on an even more ephemeral causus belli, with a hostile Iraq next door breaking out of its box. We aren't omnipotent, which I assume you know. They may not have said it straight out but they sure implied it, particularly with the mushroom cloud reference, and How does the mushroom cloud reference imply Iraqi involvement in 9/11? This I must hear. It's hard to argue about it when people can't get right what the Administration has said in plain English. Derek

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next