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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (23086)	1/5/2004 6:28:39 PM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793672

we would still be studying all the alternatives, adding two three more divisions, several more social programs, tons of red tape .. and then france would have still vetoed .. troops were there , time was right, ten years of notice. sure it could have been a lot better but the delay could have met a lot more Iraq people killed and who knows about money flooding out the country to support terrorism.

To: LindyBill who wrote (23086)	1/5/2004 7:08:48 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793672

So I still see it as "20/20 hindsight." Yes, like Nostradamus. The author did say, though, that the predictions were remarkably consistent. Then he went on to pick some particularly good examples, as you mentioned. The validity of his position is not in the examples but in whether or not they are representative of some consistent set of predictions, as he said. Which we can't tell from the article. I clearly remember a lot of those predictions. I may remember them better than you because they resonated with me. But I wouldn't necessarily remember the gamut of the predictions.