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 : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (957)	3/30/2006 8:43:23 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14758

While there is not much to disagree with in that piece, it omits a critical point. We had been at war with Saddam since 1991. Although the mainstream media had long before abandoned the story, Saddam's forces were regularly engaging our aircraft, which were duly authorized by UN resolutions to patrol the no fly zone. Furthermore, Saddam's refusal to comply with the provisions of the 1991 cease-fire agreement meant that our continued military presence was necessary there. It's easy to question Bush's decision to invade, but without proper context, some of the criticism is over the top.

To: epicure who wrote (957)	3/30/2006 9:10:49 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

I agree with this op ed piece. It doesnt tell us what to do now. It doesnt tell us if a larger US force then would have prevented the insurgency. What it tells me that one should not go to war unless one is attacked or there is a clear national interest reason. The reasons here were hyped. I dont believe bush lied but the admin hyped the intel that we later found out was bad. So when should we go to war is a question that we need to answer going forward. Humanitarian reasons like in kosovo is one reason but it has to be doable which ruanda, a much larger mess, perhaps was not. Liberals need to be real careful as well, not to follow a clinton type leader into a morass as they did with LBJ. Wilsonianism is just as potentially dangerous as neocon fp can be. I guess both libs and cons need to get back to realism but of course realism is always decried when a Sudan issue pops up.