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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (183578)2/25/2004 11:26:29 AM
From: hmaly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575427
 
Ted Re..You ignore the fact that no one required us to intervene in Iraq.....

Well, I guess, you can also say, we weren't absolutely required to intervene in Afghanistan either. You could also say, most companies aren't absolutely required to close down losing divisions . However, would you want to invest, or advise your friends to get a job at said corporation. In this gray world of ours, very few thing are black or white, just shades of gray. To say it is all about oil, is just about correct as to say, Iraq was all about WMD, Al Qaeda specifically or terrorism in general, 9/11, sanctions,no fly zones, palaces etc. While it may have been proven that Saddam had no current stocks of WMd, you haven't yet shown, that without sanctions,inspections, etc.; Saddam wouldn't have been. And you haven't shown that without the no fly zones, (which were coming about, because Turkey and SA were going to stop usage of their bases for that purpose); another slaughter of the Kurds, and Shia wouldn't have taken place. The world is a better place without Saddam, period, WMD, or no WMD, period. Any leader, who warns repeatedly about the menace Saddam is,such as Bill did, but refuses to take the necessary steps to do something about it, is hardly the type of leader you want at the head of a corporation, or a country. Right or wrong, choices must be made, and that choice should be denigrated, or praised, on its totality, not its parts.

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.

Really. Just how do you know right now, what is best for America. What is best for America, will be judged sometime in the future, not now, by the totality of events, not just the events of short time span. History has shown, that countries, lead by decisive, honest,leaders, are better for a country, than indecisive, honest leaders. Brutal Meglomaniacs, haven't shown overall, good results, but then I am not biased toward Saddam, like you are.



To: tejek who wrote (183578)3/3/2004 2:42:00 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575427
 
More. If done quickly a lot more.

I never said it should done quickly.


Quickly is relative. Maybe I shouldn't have used that term. In this case 10 years would be quickly, even 20 would probably have to be considered quickly. 50 years would probably not qualify as "quickly".

You ignore the fact that no one required us to intervene in Iraq.

No I'm not really debating Iraq so that idea isn't very relevant to the conversation. Iraq was only mentioned in terms of a cost. The requirement (or lack thereof) to pay the cost for the intervention in Iraq is important when discussing Iraq but not when discussing global warming. Yes we where comparing the costs in Iraq to that of global warming but a debate about Iraq shouldn't be inserted in to this conversation. It's a distraction. We have had that debate and continue to have that debate in other posts.

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.

Energy independence would cost a lot more then $300bil, and even if we reduced our oil needs to what we produce in the US Middle Eastern oil would still be strategically important because many of our allies and trading partners need it, because it provides money to potentially dangerous countries and regimes and because US oil production is declining so even if we could reduce oil use by the amount currently imported we would have to start importing again in the future.

Basically I don't think energy independence is at this time a realistic and useful goal so I won't support spending enormous amounts of money to try and achieve it.

Tim