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: Brumar89 who wrote (108580)	7/28/2003 10:09:12 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Brumar89; Re: "You know perfectly that at that time Iran seemed like the greater danger and that otherwise we wouldn't have had that little to do with him." Yes, Iran did seem (at that time) to be the greater danger. *And it still is.* Iran is the country that is suspected of making nukes, Iraq was clean. Iran is the country that still has big piles of chemical weapons, Iraq destroyed theirs. Iran had also used those weaons as recently in war as Iraq did. And Iran is the country that had direct connections to Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists, Iraq was relatively clean. The war party would do better to advertise their insane plan, to remake Iraq into a western style democracy, and thereby change the face of the Middle East. This arguing about what a "threat" Iraq was is only proving to the world that the administration is full of shpint. The continuing absence of WMDs in Iraq make the government's claim that Iraq was a threat into a hollow joke. The failure of that claim impeached every other intelligence claim this administration can come up with. Continuing to argue that Iraq really was a threat simply convinces the fence sitters that the people arguing in favor of Bush are unable to deal with reality. Those swing voters simply aren't buying it. If the neocons came clean with the real reason for the Iraq war (to rebuild the Middle East, just like Japan and Germany in 1945, but starting with Iraq), they just might convince some of the swing voters that it is a good idea. den Beste wrote a pretty good article arguing this line of reasoning here: #reply-19140800 den Beste is wrong for the following reasons: (1) It's fairly well known in military circles that it would require more troops than the US can muster to pacify Iraq. See #reply-18657926 for the links to the US military document that allows one to compute the numbers. There is, of course, no political will to bring back the draft and bankrupt the country in order to rebuild Iraq. (2) And the American public will never trust someone who admits that they lied in order to get the country painted into a corner where it had to do something that they had not agreed to. -- Carl