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: E who wrote (126844)	3/21/2004 8:12:59 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Nope. I don't think we should invade NK, and have never said I did.>> Your posts hinted that we should have invaded NK before Iraq. I was just responding. <<Your personal hostility to me is surprising and distressing to me, btw. I don't believe I've ever been rude to you. >> And I don't believe I've ever been hostile or rude to you. <<Bush and Cheney have 145 million dollars in the bank! You sent them money?!>> Bush and Cheney have 145 million dollars in the bank! You sent them money?! You sent money to Kerry who's wife has $5 billion bucks to spend plus Soros spending $$ billions.

To: E who wrote (126844)	3/21/2004 11:48:43 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

res- There's more than one way to skin a cat, and the way we chose in Iraq is to be judged by results and costs (in gold and blood, ours and Iraqi), and not by polls taken of people who have been misinformed as to that country's threat to us due to its WMD and connection to al-Q. And what was your plan to rid the world of Saddam and his Baathist regime? The point is, many intelligent Americans believe your skin the cat method would have been more costly, and less effective. In measuring cost vs reward, it's important to compare and contrast opposing views. In this instance, you've criticized one approach, but offered nothing of substance to compare it with.

To: E who wrote (126844)	3/23/2004 12:05:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nope. I don't think we should invade NK, and have never said I did. I was making a point: There's more than one way to skin a cat, and the way we chose in Iraq is to be judged by results and costs (in gold and blood, ours and Iraqi If the results of the first year after a hypothetical invasion of North Korea where almost identical to the actual results we have from Iraq then it would be worth it. That doesn't resolve the question "was invading Iraq worth it?" Iraq was less of a threat then North Korea is. So was Iraq a good idea judged by results? The answer depends on what you think is going to happen in Iraq in the future. I think the future of Iraq is not going to be so bad as to make the invasion a bad thing for the people of Iraq. Iraq has problems but at least it doesn't have Saddam anymore. But was the invasion beneficial for the US? In other words if you ignore the benefits for the Iraqis and only consider benefits for America and Americans was the invasion worthwhile? This question is far less certain. On the balance I would say the results will be worth it eventually but I could see how someone could reasonably disagree. If you take the most optimistic view of Iraq with Saddam and a pessimistic view of Iraq post-invasion then you will feel the invasion was a bad idea. If OTOH you take a pessimistic view of the situation in Iraq with Saddam and a optimistic view of what will happen now then Iraq was a good idea. OT Why didn't you send it to the poor Vets whose benefits Bush cut? This is OT but apparently there was no cut. townhall.com usgovinfo.about.com factcheck.org Tim