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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (36262)	6/9/2005 10:21:23 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

had Bush done nothing and another incident ensued, he'd also have been criticized. The alternative to what he has done was never "do nothing". Attacking Afghanistan was fully justified, nobody is arguing about that. Instead of turning the nation's attention AND its major military presence to Iraq, he could have gone after Al-Qaeda with greater force. I don't see how he had any real choice. Iraq was not in anybody's mind before the Bush administration started pounding on about what a great threat Saddam was and how he had to be taken out immediately so that US would not glow in the dark. The invasion of Iraq was Bush's choice, not a necessity in any way. Even if, as you say, he somehow had to invade Iraq - Did he not have the choice of actually listening to those who advised better preparation for the war and its aftermath?

To: jlallen who wrote (36262)	6/9/2005 4:47:54 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 90947

Had another incident occurred that originated in Iraq, he would have had full and unquestioned cause for war. The French would undoubtedly grumbled, but even they would have had to support military action in Iraq. The NATO Military Council voted to support the war in Afghanistan. France withdrew from the military part of NATO long ago (nice way of getting a free ride) and didn't get dragged in. In a second instance, they could well have been pushed to the wall and told they were either in or out of NATO. NATO support would also mean significant help, miltary and financial, from the rest of NATO. (Monaco, of course, once again gets a free ride.) We wouldn't be stuck alone with bils in the tens of billions of dollars a year. If you looked at the evidence the US presented to justify the war in Iraq, much was lacking. It was a rather weak case- -nothing like, say, the photos the US presented at the UN to justify the Cuban Blockade. Where are those WMDs? And who made the US the world's cop? If the UN wanted 1441 enforced, why wouldn't it vote to use military action to do it? Who are we to say which resolutions get enforced and which don't? Yeah, Bush would have gotten criticism either way. As it is, he gets it for unjustified aggression and gets little support from other nations. If he waited for a second incident, he might be criticized for not action earlier (assuming the attack was Iraq-based, which is questionable), but he would not face the current charges.