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: epicure who wrote (228545)	4/24/2007 4:05:34 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Using the Doc analogy, if it is important (like war) get a 2'nd opinion. So you don't like Scott, why not ask Hans Blix, the guy who was then tasked with heading up the UN weapons inspections? I find it rather duplicitous that those who are fond of quoting the UN resolutions as justification for war don't equally point out that the inspectors wanted continued dialog and inspections, not war. They also fail completely to acknowledge that there was a slight problem with UN teams passing info to the USA for attack purposes (as happened in 1998 also). People like to prattle about the law selectively. But there were lots of other similar dismals of more accurate information in favor of more appealing but wacky ones as well, even if you don't like Scott or Hans. What about Lindsay's $100-200B estimate for the cost of the war, which Bush & Co trashed? Lindsay was still out to lunch, but at least almost a factor of 4x better than the Admin & Defense were. Oh well, why use a good source when a lousy one will serve your purposes better?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next