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: Neocon who wrote (141186)	7/22/2004 7:51:24 AM
From: dumbmoney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nobody "knows" the future, but we base actions upon reasonable predictions all the time. I am not talking about a remote possibility, I am talking about a high probability. Of what? Unless you are a moron, and you don't seem to be, you don't believe there was a "high probability" that Iraq would attack America - in the near future, or ever. Directly or indirectly. There was a high probability that Iraq would continue to be a minor nuisance. Today it's more than a nuisance; it's an open wound and we are trying to repair it (not very competently). But a humanitarian crisis was looming Fine, let it loom. For example, if we think that a demonstration of resolve in one place is likely to make diplomacy more effective elsewhere, and therefore to diminish the risk of military confrontation overall, then it is may be worthwhile to "change the dynamic". This sort of fuzzy logic can can be used to "justify" any war at any time. It shouldn't be even a tiny factor in the decision to go to war.