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: jlallen who wrote (237682)	7/24/2007 12:04:09 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

None of that is a reason to go to war. You need a cause for war. You do not have one. The war was a failure since it had no cause. You can argue there were ancillary benefits (though if the region becomes more unstable even that disappears). But a war fought for a cause that does not exist is a failure, on its face. "SH was a threat and oppressed his denizens....he is gone.....the threat he posed to neighbors in the region is also gone...a madman no longer sits atop the world's second largest proven oil reserves, etc...." None of the things you mention is a legal justification for invasion, nor would any of those things satisfy a majority of the American people. Which is, of course, why the war was "sold" on very different terms.