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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (45866)	5/20/2004 6:35:43 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 793931

Looking at that list and answers you must be pretty content except for the prison thing. Me too.

To: Ilaine who wrote (45866)	5/20/2004 8:18:08 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793931

"...an essential part of American warfare..." Well, I've never said that and I'm not sure who has. I haven't referred to it as anything better than stupidity. But I also firmly believe it was not just as bad, just as pervasive, and just as systemic than the geniunely horrific things the Baathists themselves were guilty of, so I don't believe our efforts or our presence in Iraq is suddenly invalidated by it. You seem to be setting up straw men, naming them bland or ya'll or whomever, putting words in their mouth, and then knocking them down on the basis of what you claim they are really saying. I always regarded you as pretty sharp, now you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting people and their positions. The reason you are suddenly doing this is what I really don't understand. But like I said, I'm not sure it matters.

To: Ilaine who wrote (45866)	5/21/2004 1:51:12 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793931

Nevertheless, the premises of the war were WMD. Those premises have turned out to be horribly mistaken. I wish people wouldn't use words like "horribly" because they don't add much to the discussion, especially when the substance of the statement is questioned, as I will do below. But, hey, who am I to criticize style. Putting forth WMD which have not yet been found as the sole premise for the war is much too simplistic. Sure, none have yet been found, but there are indications which deserve scrutiny suggesting that some ended up in Syria. Secondly, even if none are found, we knew Saddam used them and had the ability to get them in the future. If he did obtain WMD in the future, particularly of the nuclear variety, the entire Mideast strategic landscape would have been changed in a way that would have threatened our national interests in a very substantial way. This is a point people forget, perhaps conveniently, when they shout "But where are the WMD? Bush lied!"