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: mistermj who wrote (174001)11/3/2005 6:46:27 AM
From: Noel de Leon  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
"...before the invasion they were just peaceful law abiding childrens day care workers and organic sheep farmers."

If you want to believe that, OK. I don't.

I can see that irony is lost on you. I'll spell it out: "3) Invasion creates terrorism." reversed: Terrorism creates invasion.

Oversimplifying a complex situation serves only demagogues. And RWEs/neocons tend to oversimplify as did Communists.

Obviously there is more terrorism today in Iraq than prior to the war. Equally obvious is that there is much less terrorism world wide than prior to the Iraq invasion. So RWEs and neocons would say that on the balance we are better off now than before the invasion of Iraq.

A part of the problem is the following: The war on terrorism has no end and that means that the wartime erosion of civil liberties will continue. This is quite different from previous wars. So liberals would say that on the balance we are worse off. Over the long term I side with the latter view.

That OBL's recruiting base has widened after the invasion is not contested. Which is a negative in the balance equation.

That the US debt is going through the roof as a consequence, among other things, of the invasion is not contested. This is also a negative.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext