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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (35366)	1/16/2004 5:02:16 PM
From: lurqer	Respond to of 89467

Oh no, not the liberal hawk clique. Maybe later, I hear my garden calling. lurqer

To: Sully- who wrote (35366)	1/16/2004 7:25:48 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 89467

Unbelievable! The arrogant lunacy to claim the right to kill men, women and children in an effort to force them to adopt your worldview is morally indefensible. Moreover, to claim that the choice was between the status quo, or the march to Baghdad is a false dichotomy. In the first place, there was nothing pressing about the "Saddam problem". Hence, even if you decide to do something about Saddam, why not take the time to do it right. Secondly, the liberal hawks thesis is that the failed ME states present a continuing threat to the west. Even if you grant that, it still is a huge leap to say one should engage in violent war to over through Saddam. There are other less simplistic and bloodthirsty, more subtle and effective ways of approaching this. I have no problem with the "outside pressure" that Fareed calls for. But a year ago, I thought that an invasion that left US soldiers as an occupation force with bull's eyes on their backs was unacceptable, and I still do. Blaming all of the problems that have ensued from this disastrous enterprise on Bush's incompetence simply doesn’t cut it. The approach was flawed from the beginning. JMO lurqer