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: TimF who wrote (187126)	4/27/2004 8:17:20 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573379

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. It does to me and countless other people. 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). All the things that you think don't support the proposition that Bush lied are legitimate ways people could come to that conclusion. Having said that, it is possible that Bush was misinformed or that he extrapolated the wrong data from reports, and determined that Saddam did have WMDs erroneously. If so, as president of 280 million people, he had a responsibility to determine if HIS conclusion was correct before going to war. If determining without a shadow of doubt was not feasible, then he needed to explore every option at his disposal to get as close to "without a shadow of a doubt" as possible before starting a costly war. He did not do that. So take your pick..........lying or malfeasance. 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? The defense of the continguous US. 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. That's right..........esp. because the above conclusion is based more on your bias rather than logic. In the past ten years, Iraq was not a potential threat to the region due to eco. sanctions and our fly overs. However, with Saddam gone and the sanctions meaningless, it might return to that status as a haven for terrorists. What was low level war has turned into open warfare and may continue for a decade or more. Was the Korean war worth the cost we paid then? No. That's why Eisenhower got elected.........he promised to bring our troops home. ted