Harold Pinter acknowledgement speech

[Occhidiangela]

Call it a hunch if you like. I called it at the time a *complete lack of evidence for the contrary position*. I still do.

In the long term, we're all dead. In the mid term, there are about a hundred thousand different ways of threats emerging. Saddam was actually quite far down the list. Shall we blow up every potential threat, solve every "mid term" security problem? Good luck.

But, clearly, there isn't gonna be no consensus on this one.

Bottoms up,

-Jester
[right][snapback]97529[/snapback][/right]

1. For point of reference, on strategic issues, I tend to lump short term into two years or less, mid term 3 - 7, and long term 7-20. After that, you are on China time. ;) I should have framed my points with that premise early, my oversight.

2. Threat lists for American policy since 1989 start in the Persian Gulf, and always have, with a significant parallel and no less dire secondary in North Korea: no matter that China is and has been the biggest strategic threat, rather rival, since about the day The Wall came down. Our politicians have been too busy selling America to the Chinese to notice. :angry: When the long term impacts of that show up, they'll all be either dead or on the lecture circuit, or president of the World Bank. :angry:

In critiquing American security decisions -- the good, the bad, and the ugly -- go ahead and cherry pick PNAC positions and motivations, cherry pick intel of varying, including bad, quality.

Then, tell me where the difference is in method? :rolleyes:

Occhi