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: Dr. Id who wrote (132713)	5/12/2004 1:44:24 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I suppose it is possible that you eschew war as an instrument of policy, but, if so, no need to pick on Bush. Otherwise, your attempted witticism is ludicrous. We are not deliberately targeting civilians, quite the contrary, we are taking casualties because we are trying to limit collateral damage. We are not going to war in the name of "our God", we are going to war in the name of defense. We are not going to war to redeem our honor, but in order to destroy the center of terrorist and rogue state activities that threaten us, and have been demonstrated to have become emboldened and more efficacious due to the attacks of 9/11. You may object to the invasion of Iraq as a side- show, but it is not. On the basis of the best intelligence estimates, Iraq was a threat. The question that divided the Americans and British from the French and Germans was the need to resolve the threat once and for all, rather than to continue with the policy of containment. Since America was expected to deal with Iraq either way, its preferred solution prevailed. Considering the scandal of children dying due to the diversion of oil- for- food/medicine money, it was the most humane thing to do, to take out Saddam once and for all...........