Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (72887)	2/10/2003 3:28:14 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

An oft-recycled argument there. Safire, from 10/28/02 What would be the consequences of a victory by Saddam over the U.S. in the Security Council? If President Bush were to meekly accept the rebuff of a further watering-down of the U.S.-British resolution, his administration would become a laughingstock. Worse, the world would have no way to restrain nuclear blackmail. nytimes.com JohnM in response: 2. The last argument of Safire that we have to go to war to save face for Bush is hardly worth discussing. It does say that some large number of folk will have to die because the Bush administration mishandled the diplomacy to leave themselves no option save war. #reply-18164700 Me in secondary response: It's an old and popular argument, though, often repeated around here. Funny thing about it, near as I can tell, the people most dedicated to the argument that we got to have a war or W will look like a wimp are mostly the same people who've been pushing W as far out on the war limb as possible all along, e.g. Perle and followers. Looks like sort of a higher level of cheesy high school debate tricks to me. #reply-18164798 Some cheesy high school debate tricks bear repeating again, and again, and again, it seems.