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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (15175)	11/5/2003 5:45:04 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793623

We dropped enough missiles on the camels and tents a few years ago...didn't make any impression, just some jokes and snickers... and then 9-11. So, then, the point of Iraq is to show them what we've got, to make an impression, to let them know that we're willing and able to squash them at the time of our choosing. Fine. I can see the value in that. Now back to the issue at hand, which is how to protect ourselves from terrorists. I'm not some "silly" pacifist. Nor am I oblivious to the horror of 9-11. My house sits under the flight path into the Pentagon. I was able to watch the building burn without the use of a TV. I'm an experienced analyst looking for how best to accomplish the goal of protecting my country from terrorists. There is a huge array of options. Do I choose to spend a bazillion dollars and American lives and tie myself and my country up for years in the backwater that is Iraq, soaking up attention and resources that could be expended elsewhere and incurring the risks of such an enormous and improbable project as bringing democracy to Iraq? Or do I focus on something that more directly protects us from terrorism. Like, duh! Perhaps in his No Child Left Behind program there should be a requirement that schools start teaching critical thinking again. We have millions of Americans waving flags and wearing Bush campaign buttons over Iraq because of what--we needed to do something rather than sitting on our hands or dropping missiles on camels? Sure, we can debate the merits of choosing to invade Iraq as our featured strategy for protecting ourselves from terrorists. I'm not saying that it has no benefits. What I'm saying is that the risks and the benefits are disproportionate to the costs and that in focusing on Iraq we failed to do many things we could have done that more directly and more cost effectively would have protected us from terrorists. We have this big diversion that is Iraq and we have people who fell for the notion that anyone who objects to Iraq is a silly pacifist who wanted to sit on her hands and wait to be victimized again. Well, that ain't so. There is another way of looking at it--that Iraq is a dangerous, risky, and enormously expensive diversion from the task at hand, which is protecting ourselves from terrorists. Sure, there's a tangential relationship between Iraq and the terrorists. And maybe what we're doing in Iraq will end up doing more good than harm to our primary goal. But I submit that Iraq was not our best focus, not even close. Yeah, the majority of Americans have bought in. Critical thinking is MIA.