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: neolib who wrote (155687)	1/9/2005 4:45:19 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) of 281500

The argument about a united front in the face of a dangerous foe has some merit, but our society is WAY to open (thank goodness) to effectively obtain that, so we just have to deal with that fact. Addendum to that: you don't go to war before you've mobilized a large majority behind you. If the threat from Saddam had truly been imminent, few if any would have objected to war. Despite what Nadine said in an earlier post, not many people objected to the air strikes on Afghanistan after the Taliban wouldn't give Osama up. We wouldn't have "won" in Vietnam even if there hadn't been protests against the war. The North and their [many] allies in the South (a "country" that we invented along with a few Frenchified Vietnamese, in direct contradiction to the Geneva Accords of 1954) wouldn't have stood for it. They were willing to fight to the death, while we weren't willing to destroy completely indiscriminately to achieve our "goal" (whatever it was), though we did manage to inflict a huge amount of damage with our bombing and defoliating the countryside.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next