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: Lane3 who wrote (50648)	6/17/2004 2:10:05 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793966

By that reasoning, it would be even more important for us to take Iran right now. I don't see that in the works. Neither do I. Iran has a nascent reform movement which may succeed. If it fails and the Mad Mullahs continue their path to nuclear weaponry, the consequences may be serious indeed. Their focus seems to be on Israel, which can deter them effectively. So far, there are no signs that the Iranians are interested in Saddam-like nuclear blackmail. Saddam was a lunatic, the Mullahs I think have the capacity to listen to reason. i don't underestimate the Iranian danger, but I do think it is much less than the danger Saddam or his sons posed. As to the "misunderstanding," it seems to me that the Lefty Media is doing all it can to perpetuate any such misunderstanding. I certainly never perceived a Saddam/AQ responsibility for 9/11 being pushed as a justification for war, and the Bush Administration did not say one existed, either. If your homeowner or dental insurance covers replacements but not maintenance, There is no insurance for the kind of threat Saddam presented, only risk. Certain things have to be done with or without world support. I take my child to the dentist whether he likes it or not. I fix my foundation whether it costs me a bit now because I know it will cost me a lot more later. The French, the Russians, and everyone else who profited from trade with Saddam would have never supported the venture, unless Saddam had already taken serious steps to control the flow of oil. By then, their support would have been irrelevant. A prophylactic ridding of Saddam, like all things prophylactic, was destined to be unpopular. The Russians and the French all had their self-interest to protect, even though their perception of their own self-interest in my view was quite myopic from a long term perspective. In the ultimate analysis, Saddam's continued presence as we slid down Hubbert's Peak was absolutely intolerable.

To: Lane3 who wrote (50648)	6/17/2004 2:12:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793966

By that reasoning, it would be even more important for us to take Iran right now. I don't see that in the works. Why does that principle apply only to Iraq? Because it was feasible in Iraq. Yes, it's even more important in Iran, but it's far, far better that the people do it themselves. We haven't yet given up that in Iran. We did give up on it in Iraq. This is say that your rationale is wrong, only to assert that all this is arguable, not as clear cut as you assert Yes, a war of choice is always arguable. But most policy-makers agreed that looking down the road, picking the most likely outcomes, got you to a very bad position with Saddam & Sons, very bad. The argument was what to do about it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (50648)	6/19/2004 12:37:15 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793966

I understand that point but it still seems shaky to me. By that reasoning, it would be even more important for us to take Iran right now. I don't see that in the works. Why does that principle apply only to Iraq? Because it's a rationalization, not a reason, that's why. This belongs to the species of arguments that assert that because we can't tackle all problems, we must tackle none. Iraq was doable then, Iran wasn't. It would also not have been very practical to try an invasion of Iran, on an even more ephemeral causus belli, with a hostile Iraq next door breaking out of its box. We aren't omnipotent, which I assume you know. They may not have said it straight out but they sure implied it, particularly with the mushroom cloud reference, and How does the mushroom cloud reference imply Iraqi involvement in 9/11? This I must hear. It's hard to argue about it when people can't get right what the Administration has said in plain English. Derek