SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dan B. who wrote (75553)4/17/2006 10:19:14 AM
From: CogitoRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
>>Allen, keeping it simple here, America was attacked, and our response as far as I'm concerned, fits the justifiable definition of "preemptive war."<<

Dan -

If the war Iraq had been the response to an attack, it wouldn't have been preemptive war, would it?

Keeping it simple here, America wasn't attacked by Iraq. Troops massing at a border are one thing, but a bunch of circumstantial evidence is something else.

As for Saddam always considering himself at war with the U.S. since 1991, I think that position makes a lot of sense, considering that not a week went by during the time between the two wars when there wasn't some sort of action in the No Fly zones. We were shooting missiles and dropping bombs on Iraq throughout that period.

As I said before, you believe that the case for war was valid, I believe it wasn't. Nothing I say could possibly change your mind, and I have yet to see anything from you that will change mine. It is possible, by the way, to change my mind, but to do so you would need to provide more evidence and less inference.

I see no point in debating this with you any longer.

The fact is that we did attack Iraq, wrong or right, and our troops are now there for the foreseeable future. What matters now is finding a way to get out without leaving a worse mess than we have there currently. That sure as hell isn't going to be easy.

- Allen