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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (187099)	4/27/2004 4:43:57 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573211

That's right.......it is subjective. And I believe the lack of WMDs and al Qaeda links substantiate my initial opinions. I believe that now I was absolutely right and that my claim is no longer subjective. The lack of WMD doesn't say anything about wether Bush was lying or mistaken. As for al Qaeda links it appears there may have been some but they were probably not very strong. Links to other terrorist groups where stronger. I base my conclusions on fact......what do you base yours on? Facts by themselves don't give any logical conclusion you need to take the facts and apply reason. And of course since neither us is perfectly knowledgeable or without bias (and neither is anyone else) we base a lot of our conclusions about opinions about facts. The facts that you have to support your claim are basically "Bush said there was WMD" and "we have found no WMD". Logically those are not enough to result in "Bush lied about WMD". But you add to them things like "Bush's body language suggested he was lying" and other subjective or uncertain premises and its understandable while you come to the conclusion that Bush lied (and not just the normal spin or exaggeration that politicians do almost continually but a direct and IYO unacceptable lie). We both see the facts. We both know what Bush said, and what was found (or not found) in Iraq. Your argument is based partially on these facts but not just these facts. You have to go beyond the known facts to conclude that Bush lied. To go beyond the exact and certain facts is not unreasonable, most people, perhaps all people, due this frequently when forming an opinion about people, organizations, ideas, ect. But you should be willing to recognize the uncertainty of your argument. To insist that anyone who doesn't agree is unreasonable, blinded or strongly biased is in effect asserting that no reasonable person can disagree with you on this particular subject. Most of the time such an assertion is both arrogant and unreasonable. No. The cost both in lives and $$$ is too great considering what has been accomplished. What sort of benefit would, in your opinion, justify the loss of about 700 Americans and 100 or so billion dollars? Apparently freeing 20+ million people from a brutal dictator, removing a potential threat to a vital region, and ending over a decades worth of low level war and harmful sanctions is not enough. Was the Korean war worth the cost we paid then? Tim