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: KonKilo who wrote (27559)	8/30/2006 11:29:26 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541978

I think we should aim higher - Both in terms of not being as bad as the terrorists, and in terms of not launching the worst planned military operation in history, and we do, and we hit higher targets than that. But if someone claims "we are as bad as the terrorists", or "no military operation has been as poorly planed or as much of a debacle" than its reasonable to argue against such statements. I would hope that even most of the anti-war and anti-Bush crowd would agree with the arguments against these statements even if they didn't actually join in with the arguments. I don't really see this as being an issue of careful parsing. It taking an extreme statement, and putting it in perspective, showing how extreme and obviously wrong it is. Once the argument gets past the more indefensible extremes, then you can focus on arguments about how bad rendition is, or what you think about Iraq in more realistic terms. It still doesn't mean that you will necessarily get agreement, but at least there is some hope of a real discussion.