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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219423)	2/19/2007 7:03:33 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

The answer seems to be that because intelligence erred in its judgment that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction it could be erring here, too: All intelligence that could be used to justify military action is inherently dubious. Yes, well, like it or don't, this is the inevitable result of the 2003 intelligence being so far off base. Didn't we discuss this sometime back in late 2003? Policing the borders between Iraq and Syria and Iran is a lot less dangerous and expensive than all-out war with Iran. I realize that the unspoken subtext is the centrifuges, etc. But without a casus belli, our hands are tied. JMHO.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219423)	2/19/2007 10:14:11 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know why you post that to me. I don't think you need to, or should, believe intelligence 100%. I believe that for wars you need an act of war. For most other matters it really doesn't matter if the intelligence is 100% because the US will bumble its way around the globe whether it has correct or incorrect intelligence. So actually your point about intelligence being inherently unstable supports my position, that you don't go to war preemptively based on intelligence you can never be 100% certain of. If you have an act of war you have a sum certain, and no one is going to argue about it. That's nice when you're going to war- to have a good reason everyone can approve of, and which won't later turn out to not have existed. Right?