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 : Support the French! Viva Democracy! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (553)	4/1/2003 3:46:48 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7833

Now that we have a war, the risks attached to proceeding are the same, but there is a new set of risks attached to bailing out. So which risks are greater, in your opinion, both in terms of likelihood and probable damage - continuing the fight and occupying Iraq for some (long) period or bailing out now? By the way, assuming that all who want to attack the US are "mad" greatly diminishes the accuracy of the analysis. Do you really think that mad Islamists are less likely to attack us if we bail? Not less likely than before the war started, but certainly less likely than if this war goes on further, and ends with a much resented occupation. War is not a binary state, you know. It just looks that way. we're more hateful for having attacked Iraq in the first place and even more hateful for being weak quitters As I said, it does not have to be a case of "weak quitters", but one of "we never had imperialist intentions anyway". I am sure the same people who convinced half of America that Saddam was behind 9/11 can spin this story right just as well. No, we don't eliminate the risks of this war by stopping it. Certain damages are already done but others are not. I still have not understood how you support this war knowing full well the dangers it will lead to.