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 (117688)	10/25/2003 9:26:19 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

> This is why we "rushed" into war a full 18 months after 9/11? Nope. We waited the 18 months because Powel threatened to resign if we did not take care of Afghanistan first. There were those who did not care to go after the Taliban, who after all had a much greater part in 9/11 than Saddam. > after wasting half a year in the UNSC. Again no. Bush wasted no time whatsoever to attack Iraq. He simply used the time it took to prepare for the invasion to pay lip service to debate in UN. > And of course, the fact that all resistance isn't done after 7 months is more fuel for the its-just-like-Vietnam quagmire... That was never my argument, so I don't know why you are bringing it to me. If you read a very recent post of mine, I specifically said since neither side clarified their reasons, both sides have been proven wrong because among other things, Iraq has not turned into Viet Nam. > There was a public debate. The anti-war side lost. Well, it would not have made an ounce of difference what the public debate would have turned out. There was never a viable legal debate on the issue. The administration orchestrated the environment so that any congressman who'd question the need for invasion would look like a traitor. So they gave Bush enough rope to hang himself, know well who to deal with him a year later. That is the essence of politics, is it not? To bend when the pressure is too much and to back stab in the whiplash when there is a sea change? I assume that they had seen all the evidence they needed to convince them that Saddam himself was a threat Yes you do. And the reason you are making such an assumption is because they never came out and actually said that. But if that is what they believed in, then that is what they should have said and respected the democratic process.