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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (5222)	11/12/2005 9:27:54 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543227

That's the whole problem with "preemptive" war. It required a lot of guesswork, and at least in terms of this administration, guesswork isn't optimal. I hope no one experiments with "preemption" in the future- not in terms of warfare.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (5222)	11/12/2005 12:11:51 PM
From: rich evans	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543227

What standards will you use? I already said I would use the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE standard as the proper risk analysis. The risk of a WMD attack on America by evil person or persons merits taking action before one can prove the threat by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear, cogent or convincing evidence. Others would use a higher standard of evidence including yourself I would guess. Higher standard is safer politically etc but risks an attack like my FDR example. He had substantial evidence of Japan's intentions etc but waited and the attack occured. One cannot wait to see if an attck occurs when WMD is possibly involved. Rich

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (5222)	11/12/2005 2:10:03 PM
From: upanddown	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543227

In early 2003, the Bush administration was expecting a minor engagement with minimal casualties and little or no resistance. They expected that the cost would be self-financed with Iraqi oil. Why do any planning when it is just going to be a cakewalk? Why agonize over the rationale for war when we are just going to get Saddam, install some friendlies and get out of there in no time? This was the real failure, even more than the lack of WMDs. Colin Powell tried to warn them but he had already been dismissed as a wimp by the Bush tough guys.