For whatever reasons, known or unknown to us, the Bush Administration has chosen Iraq as the next target in the War on terrorism. If we were to attack NK we would also be charged with the responsibility of protecting South Korea. There is no such obligation involved in the Iraqi situation. Better to deal with these problems in series than in parallel.
Regarding the opportunity cost, the sum total of all your cited costs means absolutely nothing if there is a successful WMD attack on one or more American cities. In essence, 9/11 was an isolated incident affecting a few city blocks in two cities. Those attacks nudged the economy over the edge of a long anticipated recession. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what would happen to the economy if we were attacked again in a much more devastating way.
Current Events » in reply to cleaned up and de-Cr'd version of the same text
Re:
The whole thread (56 posts)
- yet another good view from the anti-war perspective
- A lot of fallacious argumentation
- Re: A lot of fallacious argumentation
- I'm glad we agree then. Once we are done with Iraq will will insist that the other countries you mentioned disarm od WMD
- Re: I'm glad we agree then. Once we are done with Iraq will will insist that the other countries you mentioned disarm od WMD
- I'm glad we agree then. Once we are done with Iraq will will insist that the other countries you mentioned disarm od WMD
- Re: A lot of fallacious argumentation
- Re: An essay
- the anti-war perspective
- cleaned up and de-Cr'd version of the same text
- One size doesn't fit all
- Re:
- Re: Re:
- The point of reason
- Re: Re:
- A lot of fallacious argumentation
