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: i-node who wrote (192206)	6/29/2004 12:04:26 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578821

>I believe you can understand this. I do not believe tejek, A.S. or JF can. So I'm going to take a shot at it Dave, I think it's you that's not getting it (not that I agree with the three of them at every turn). When you're fighting a war that you have no choice but to fight (WWII, for instance), you can't use those as metrics -- if you don't fight the war, your country very well may stop existing. However, these metrics do apply in a war of choice, like Iraq. If you had a crystal ball and could tell me for certain that the vision of a new, more democratic, more stable Middle East was being unfolded by these sacrifices, I'd be all for it. In fact, I was somewhat on board after reading "Rebuilding America's Defenses," by the Project for a New American Century, as well as a number of other books and articles on the topic. However, I began to doubt if the people who were formulating and preparing to execute the strategy could actually see it through. Now, I really think they can't (but still hope they can). If we spend hundreds of billions on foreign wars that could be spent domestically, and see hundreds or thousands of our troops dying, all while seeing many things getting worse, including the metrics that John posted, then perhaps the war of choice wasn't worth waging. As of right now, I can't feel that it was worth waging. -Z