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: Lane3 who wrote (15252)	11/5/2003 3:44:05 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793625

recognize that everyone who disagrees with "liberating" Iraq isn't a weakling or a pacifist or an appeaser or unpatriotic You had said you couldn't see any good reasons for our liberation of Iraq. I listed what I felt were the reasons, and you rejected them. That's fine. I simply feel you are wrong to do so. You disagree. OK. You think that is too "black and white." I don't. How would you have "nuanced" it? The key to my realization of your thinking was when you rejected the concept that keeping up our "no-fly" mini-war was too expensive, time consuming, and left us too tied up with Saddam in the ME. It's no use trying to cost/benefit with you on the subject if that is your premise, which you have stated it is. I consider it a "false premise," and see no benefit to the discussion in going round and round with you on it. You and I are working with different premises. We are so far apart on them that we would just be arguing past each other to continue a war/no war discussion about our reasons for going into Iraq. None of this discussion of what we should do can take place in a vacuum. The major consideration is "what is politically possible?" Starting the "Slum Clearance" with Iraq was. Moving on Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria wasn't.