SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (183551)2/25/2004 12:11:59 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) of 1575424
 
More. If done quickly a lot more.

I never said it should done quickly.

Edit - That's in dollar terms. Counting lives makes it more complex because

1 - You have to decide how much money its going to take to equal a life. That whole idea might sound crass but would you really have the country spend say a years worth of our GDP to spend one life? I doubt it. Would you spend $1000 to save a life? I'm almost sure you would. Somewhere in between is a reasonable cost per life

and

2 - The amount of lives to put in the equation is very uncertain. Not only do we not now how many lives have been lost in Iraq because of the war but we don't know how many lives would have been lost by the combination of continuing the santctions and Saddam's continued leadership of Iraq, if we didn't have the war.

You ignore the fact that no one required us to intervene in Iraq.....neither the world nor the Iraqis. Saddam is gone but very little has been accomplished. Worse.........the Iraqi Governing Council is casting covetous eyes on neighboring Jordan and Kuwait.

You and other conservatives are making this big humanitarian thing out of the war. If you want to do that, that's your business but I am looking at the what is best for America.

Also we don't know how many lives would be lost by the attempt for energy independence. The fact that it would cost so much means we would put resources (not just money but also the time of skilled researches and the general attention of the US population and its government) into achieving energy independence means that resources would be removed from other areas some of which could have saved lives. Everything from medical research, to actual use of the new medicines and techniques the research discovers, to improving intersections, to reducing poverty cost money. Also if we where to be energy indpendent we would have to drive smaller cars which would be less safe in a crash.

That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard come from your side of the table. You would spend $300 billion on another country but you are want to nickel and dime our energy independence. Talk about being shortsighted.

In any case even if we had achieved energy independence in recent years the Iraq war would probably have happened anyway.

Yes, because that was an issue with Bush that he 'forgot' to put on his campaign platform in 2000.

ted
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News