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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: soozieque who wrote (173232)	3/4/2003 12:55:06 PM
From: fingolfen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

This is a perfect example of pea-brain logic. With your reasoning, you can conclude that, when millions of Americans drive through tens of thousands of traffic lights at busy intersections every day in the U.S., with a near-zero death rate, that we would be safe to remove all these traffic lights and save on the electric bill that was used to operate them. You are a clear illustration of someone using faulty and distorted logic to put forth his own subtle political agenda. While the original poster may or may not be putting forth a political agenda, I must disagree with your thesis and comparison here. First, you start out with a near ad homiem attack. That's not "logic" in any sense. If you want to defeat a point on logical grounds, do so. The problem is the logic demonstrated in your post is poor and inappropriate. You equate questioning the value of military action in Iraq (which may or may not materially reduce the probability of being the victim of a terrorist attack) to removing street lights to save money on power. Let's look at this carefully: On Terrorism: 1) The odds of being victim of one are reasonably low. 2) Attacking Afghanistan hasn't intrinsically reduced our risk of being attacked. 3) The U.S. stance on Iraq has alienated several nations (nations that supported us fully in previous actions against Iraq). 4) The U.S. stance on Iraq is creating additional backlash in the nations whose people are most likely to engage in terrorism against the U.S. I therefore conclude that attacking Iraq and removing Saddam Hussain isn’t likely to solve the “terrorism” problem any more than attacking Afghanistan did. (On a personal note, I will, however, say it was about time someone did something about the Taliban, and if King George I had done the job right in Iraq the first time, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now). On removing street lights: 1) U.S. traffic figures aren’t great, but aren’t bad, because we have good traffic regulations 2) Fatalities generally stem from someone not obeying those regulations. 3) Removing traffic controls is known to increase risk of accident and injury 4) The cost of automobile related incidents in the U.S. already runs into the billions, so any power savings would be negligible as compared to the increased cost of automobile accidents. Looking at the two examples, I see absolutely no parallels. In the terrorism example we are moving to change a “given state” to a “future state” that may or may not improve in the short or long term. There are substantial risks to both because of a general lack of data. In your alleged comparison, we’re moving from a safe “given state” to a “future state” that is known to be dangerous with an incredulous motivation. I therefore believe it’s an act of unmitigated hubris to conclude that the original poster used “faulty and distorted logic to put forth his own subtle political agena...”

To: soozieque who wrote (173232)	3/4/2003 7:24:33 PM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

OT Hi Soozieque, the issue isn't that the risk isn't there, and in fact, John would probably concur the risk here in homeland is higher for terrorism, but the issue is how it is handled, and to also not overlook that this Bush approach creates - more terrorism. Many international people are quite incensed that Bush demands Iraq to put their weapons down at the same time Bush shows intent to blow Iraq up. This is like walking up to your neighbor with a fleet of cannons while showing every intention of blowing up his/her house, while asking them to disarm their gun, while you fire & aim. In international circles, this is called "bullying" and bullying spawns more terrorism. Basic international cultural psychology is important on handling politics and maintaining our safety. For an idea on what some other countries might think: english.peopledaily.com.cn Some USA Presidents had the international finesse to wipe out an Arabian pharmaceutical company & some weapons without creating hostilities with Arabians, of course, his error was not doing an acceleration of locating more terrorists. With respect to Bush, the world is against the USA on this matter. Not because Bush is necessarily wrong, but because his methodology lacks finesse. Why send 180,000 troops at a huge cost, when you can send and spend a fraction of that number of people & amount of dollars to do the same thing at a lower cost and with significantly less destruction? Intelligence/FBI not military. The USA has less than a dozen FBI types in Karachi/Pakistan to find bin Laden and other terrorists, meanwhile it's loading up 180,000 troops outside of Iraq. The approach or methodology is wrong and costly. Regards, Amy J