SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lurqer who wrote (23616)7/27/2003 8:16:34 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Ends justifying the means has been used by more than leftists (historically speaking).

I'm sure many believe the US needed to intervene in the ME (are we talking post invasion or pre-invasion? I cannot tell). If we are talking pre-invasion of Iraq I have never seen the point in invading Iraq to stop more 911's since Iraq has, so far as I know, no connection to that event, nor is there any information that such an event was being planned by Iraq. Excised bits of the investigation into 911 will no doubt show a Saudi connection, but even with that taken as given, I do not think invasion in the ME lessens our risk- in fact, I think it heightens it. Why? Because Osama wanted a classic conflict between the West and Islam- and we have been trying our darndest to give him what he wanted (imo).

I think we should have concentrated on better coordination in our intelligence services, and intelligence services and local law enforcement, and better security for vulnerable sectors. It would have been much cheaper than invading Iraq, more logical, and (imo) much more effective.

In the ME I think the better course would have been to wait- as I already said, for either of the sensible triggers to invasion which I mentioned. 911 is a red herring as far as Iraq is concerned. I don't see why people continue to mention 911 and Iraq in the same breath. It makes no sense at all.