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: Neocon who wrote (153749)	12/9/2004 2:48:44 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) of 281500

If the circumstances are intolerable enough, surmise will do. Obviously one doesn't want to make a mistake, but the error of toppling a tyrant for mixed reasons, some of which do not hold up, is slight compared to leaving him in place without ascertaining how much of a menace he really is. I suppose you are able to argue that determining whether Saddam was really a risk could not be done with less: - lives lost, on all sides; - money spent. I'm quite certain that 1/2 of current expenditures could easily have determined whether Iraq was a threat with next to ZERO lives lost. Probably a mere billion could have done it, instead, Bush will have spent 200 billion that we know of, much more on top of that, and up to or more than half a trillion dollars before the decade is out. No one can possibly argue that sorting out Iraq could not be done, cheaper. And without killing thousands of US and "allied" forces and tens of thousands of civilians and unknown thousands of combattants. The approach Bush has taken is NOT conservative, not by any definition.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next