SI
SI
discoversearch

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: skinowski who wrote (130595)4/30/2004 11:32:05 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
It beats me how they can pretend that we have not risen to a real threat, whether they disagree with the strategic or tactical responses or not. Do they think this is all arbitrary? Do they understand that we are trying to act before there is an incident of mass murder that makes Sept. 11th look like a small skirmish? Do they understand that we had to act on the basis of best information, which even the Clinton's admit was what the CIA was stating during Bill's administration: i.e., that no one in the Bush Administration invented the WMDs, whatever the answer is about the matter. Do they understand that enough labs capable of manufacturing chemical and biological agents have been found that the questions of stockpiles is moot anyway, Saddam was easily is a position to pass on WMDs for unconventional delivery by terrorists? Do they understand the difference between being at war and building court cases? On the street, for example, if a cop has a reasonable belief that a perp is drawing down on him, he can employ deadly force. If it turns out that there was no gun, whether it is a good shoot or not turns on the reasonableness of his belief that he was in danger. If it was reasonable, it was a good shoot. In the same way, we had ample reason to take out Saddam, based on a reasonable perception of threat. The additional reasons sweetened the pot........