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: LindyBill who wrote (176423)	8/13/2006 1:15:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 793561

What you are saying then is that in spite of all evidence pointing to Saddam having WMD, you don't believe we should have gone in. The light bulb goes on... <g> Arguing about it now is a waste of time. Yes, arguing about the substance of it is a waste of time. The only reason I engaged at all was to back up Euterpe's claims that the range of POVs on this was not binary. So much of the political confrontation these days comes from binary thinking so I try to disabuse folks of it whenever I can. So long as you recognize a third set, my job is done. But not one that those of us on the other side were willing to live with. One of the other sides. One of the other sides. Because Iraq turned out to be a mistake, we probably won't go in to Iran. I hope, too, that folks won't conflate Iraq and Iran. They're really quite different in many ways including the meaning of WMD when applied to the two countries. All WMD are not of equal threat. Iran surely is more of a threat to us than Iraq ever was for that and other reasons. One of the arguments made by some of this third set of opinion holders on Iraq was that we shouldn't deplete our flexibility because we might have a greater need to take action later.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next