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 (108756)	7/29/2003 5:18:37 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

That is the sober truth. What option did we have except to go after Al Qaeda? And if a regime like the Taliban was shielding them, so much the worse for the Taliban. Syria is a good deal less dangerous with the junior Assad, at least for the time being, and Iran was experiencing the first pangs of popular revolt. Meanwhile, we had a chronic situation with Iraq, and reason to believe not only in the special evil of the regime, but in its drive to increase its WMD capability, preparatory to a bid for regional hegemony. Could we afford to let things fester? Could we hope forever that a fatal linkage with a group like Al Qaeda would not be made? Should we wait for him to finally get a nuclear capability when he was ripe for overthrow? Should we lose the chance to provide a lesson to Iran and Syria? Would it have sufficed to have fooled around with inspections for several more months, when all Saddam had to do was start again after the inspectors left? Would we be able to keep a deployment there forever, with the threat of terrorist attack? Yes, Mr. Democratic Nominee, what would you have done?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (108756)	7/29/2003 8:32:49 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Den Beste's logic may have taken him to some fairly extreme positions, but he does have his logic and he has followed it. He is an engineer, and if you want to change his mind you are going to have to point out the fallacies in his premises or logic. Don't be ridiculous. You're talking about a guy who describes himself as an expert on "military science" because he's played a lot of war games. The last time I looked at one of his pieces critically I found so many unsupported assumptions and blatant fallacies that I gave up trying to list them, much less pull them apart. DenBeste is popular because he is arrogant and superficially articulate, and a lot of people like to see their own opinions declared elegantly. Anybody who thinks is going to click elsewhere. There are sites like this sprouting all over the place, representing all manner of ideologies. People go to them for affirmation, not information. Content is not the issue: most here know that I have no problem treating ideological antagonists with respect, if they deserve it. He doesn't.