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 (111098)	8/12/2003 1:21:42 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You have cited the group of people who wanted to invade Iraq in 1998. As we know from Pollack's book, an invasion was seriously debated in the Clinton White House at this time as well. True. I only wanted to counter Michael D. Cummings' statement "There is near zero evidence Bush advisors wanted to invade Iraq prior to 9/11." The PNAC people I quoted were clearly in favor of launching military action against Iraq which certainly meant more than the occasional cruise missile. Highlighting the history of Iraq attack plans is a different matter than commenting on them. I was against the war but now that it's over it's time to move on. There's no denial that there are positive outcomes: the regime has been toppled and now the Iraqis have a chance to build a better future.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (111098)	8/12/2003 1:35:14 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine, 9/11 didnt necessarily make bush a neocon but it did make him take a hard look at what the neocons were suggesting prior to 9/11. The big difference in this debate between hawk and dove on iraq is not about neocons but more about accepting the changed post 9/11 world and using some of the tactics of the neocon to combat our enemies. Colin Powell and Ken Pollack aren't neocons and neither am I for that matter. And neocons are human and make mistakes so the admin must look to the powell/pollack view(and others) to compensate at times. The biggest weakness of the Doves is their inability to see 9/11 as this gens Pearl Harbor and if they ever did take power this blind spot could be fatal for this nation. Mike

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (111098)	8/13/2003 12:49:50 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Jochen, you have cited the group of people who wanted to invade Iraq in 1998. As we know from Pollack's book, an invasion was seriously debated in the Clinton White House at this time as well." That was at a time when Iraq had not shown any signs about seriously getting rid of their WMDs. By contrast, in late 2002 and early 2003, there was plenty of evidence of Saddam's inclination to comply and zero evidence of the continuing presence of WMDs in Iraq. The difference in the situations was clear to most of the Clinton people who made the decision not to invade in 1998. In 2002, their decision was still, not to invade. Therefore it isn't immediately obvious why it is logical to attribute the failings of Bush's policy (the decision to invade) to the success of Clinton's policy (the wise decision to leave the place alone). -- Carl