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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106421)	7/19/2003 8:59:51 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

I don't believe I implied we picked Iraq out of a hat. Disingenuous, Nadine. But your will to win arguments by use of many distortions is indeed impressive.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106421)	7/19/2003 9:08:53 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

"Talking as if we picked Iraq out of a hat, having nothing to do with them previously, now that is mental gymnastics. We had been twelve years in Iraq already, spending $4 billion a year to 'contain' them." Now let's go over what I said together, and look for that hat thing. "Maybe, maybe not" really isn't a great justification for using something as iffy as preemptive war. If a regime is going to implement a policy like preemptive war, they probably ought to be preempting more than a "maybe". And you accuse the left of mental gymnastics? Ironic" '"Maybe, maybe not" really isn't a great justification for using something as iffy as preemptive war. ' Could it be this sentence? NO- because that is simply about the presence or absence of an imminent threat to the US. I implied nothing about the ongoing relationship we have with Iraq via the UN resolutions, and our own long history with the country. hmmm. Could it be here?'If a regime is going to implement a policy like preemptive war, they probably ought to be preempting more than a "maybe". ' I don't see how it could be that- because that sentence is about the policy of preemptive war, and what triggers should be allowed to use such a novel idea (and one that might be a bit nasty, if certain other countries were to use it). So I'm left with this sentence: " And you accuse the left of mental gymnastics? Ironic." I'm not seeing the hat thing there either. I am left with the conclusion that perhaps, just perhaps, in your zeal to prosecute your positions you highly distort what you read, to serve your opinions. We all do it to some extent, but what you did to my post was...extreme, imo.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106421)	7/19/2003 8:11:10 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "We had been twelve years in Iraq already, spending $4 billion a year to 'contain' them." So that's what, $48 billion dollars? A lot of money. Of course it's a lot less than what the "cure" cost, which is now $48 billion per year for the foreseeable future. Yeah, what Bush did was to increase costs by 12 times. But that's not all. He also increased the number of Americans killed by 500 per year, did serious damage to the war on terror, gave the best demonstration of American impotence since Vietnam, and destroyed the Republican party. -- Carl