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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (176343)	8/13/2006 1:06:16 AM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 793613

Along with the Intel, which had been so compromised and our sources so limited in Iraq that it should have caused more hesitation that it did (imo), was the disregard for the many other reasons this particular action could fail badly, including not just the decision to go pretty much on our own, but to do so without the proper preparations, and that is not hindsight. A lot of us were saying that in 02. Before we wage a pre-emptive war that shifts the foundations of our policies, I want certainties. I realize many believe we didn't have the time for them. I believe we should have taken the time. But I understand how many here don't agree, and that's ok. I am kind of worn out, and will take a break for a while, but appreciate the courtesy extended a non-believer here.

To: LindyBill who wrote (176343)	8/13/2006 10:53:24 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793613

To do that, you had to discount the Intel from ALL of the Western Intel agencies about Saddams WMD capabilty.. No, you didn't have to discount it. I know that for many that was the elephant in the room, all determining. But for others it was one factor among many, plus, like all factors, open to different weighting. Plenty of people had sufficient foresight to argue against it, including Euterpe and me. I have posted before that the only thing about the way Iraq played out that surprised me was the looting, although that probably occurred to someone somewhere. Everything else was easy enough to anticipate if one was disposed to look coldly at both pros and cons. I'll grant you that those arguments did not get much representation on this thread so maybe some didn't notice them or forgot about them, but they were out there. Had Saddam actually had the WMD capability and had we not removed him when we did, would we be worse off than we are now? Maybe, but not necessarily. And for that factor to warrant elephant status, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that we necessarily would, which cannot be done even with the benefit of hindsight.