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: frankw1900 who wrote (119123)	11/11/2003 6:41:01 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't think anybody in the Bush administration is talking about "why we did it." They're focussed on the future, not the past. The only people out in the public arena who are focussed on "why we did it" are some supporters of Howard Dean and Kucinich, and the <STRIKE>fruitbats</STRIKE> candidates to the left of them. People to whom Rachel Corrie is a martyred saint.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (119123)	11/11/2003 7:19:39 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

> There seems to be a requirement on the part of some people who post here that there be only one reason to attack the Hussein regime. Well, I think there should be at least one convincing reason for the war and then you can use all the other arguments to marginally fortify that position. I don't think a lot of half reasons add up to one full reason. I am all for promoting democracy and freedom around the world. I just don't think we can say on one hand we are going to war to protect democracy while at the same time we give financial and political support to other brutal dictators. I could accept the "we oppose all dictators but we only invade those that are strategic to us" doctrine. But I cannot accept the "we oppose some dictators on humanitarian grounds but we support others on strategic grounds" argument. That argument is not internally self consistent because it is using apples and oranges (ideals and pragmatism) in the same equation.