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: Hawkmoon who wrote (228334)	4/23/2007 11:36:37 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Just like people are being lied to about their being no serious consequences should we withdraw from Iraq. Who is saying there are no serious consequences? Not me. The problem is that staying does not make it any better, it simply delays the serious consequences, while likely making them worse. If I enter into a binding contract based upon a lack of due diligence on my part, I'm still obligated to fulfill that contract. Lack of due diligence does not get you out of the deception part. No weasling allowed on the lied part either. If you don't like it, just ask yourself if any business contract with that level of "facts" would stand in court. But in the case you bring up, the intelligence services of 15 different UNSC members "lied to them" to the point that they UNANIMOUSLY DECLARED SADDAM TO BE IN MATERIAL BREACH. They should have listen to Scott Ritter, he was more accurate. Accuracy counts, BS does not. FDR and Churchill lied to the American people about their knowledge of Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor. The British had broken both the Japanese Naval and Diplomatic codes and HAD TO KNOW. Should the American people have been obligated to wage that war, had that information been discovered? 300,000 dead Americans might like to know why FDR and J. Edgar Hoover failed to listen to a German double agent who warned them he had been sent on a mission to investigate Pearl Harbor's defenses: The analogy from that is 9/11 & Israeli tips (and perhaps more detailed knowledge) which has still not been shared with the American public. You make a mistake to think that FDR should have preemptively launched war against Japan (is that what you are suggesting?). Instead he was responsible for being taken by surprise. Given warming, Pearl Harbor should not have been the duck shoot it was. There is a big difference between launching a war on slim evidence, vs. being awake a constantly vigilant. Why do you think that preemptive war or asleep at the switch are the two choices? They are both poor choices.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next