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: SilentZ who wrote (192208)	6/29/2004 1:32:36 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578880

>> However, these metrics do apply in a war of choice, like Iraq. Well, I would argue it wasn't a war of choice. But that's a different argument. But the metrics don't apply. Once you've committed to go to war it doesn't matter whether it was one of choice or not. It is a war and you have fight it as though you intend to win it. As of right now, I can't feel that it was worth waging. This is the critical point. You are so close to getting it, but just haven't quite made the connection. What you feel "right now" simply cannot be a factor. The determination to go to war, right or wrong, must be made up front. And it cannot be changed halfway through. If a leader allows himself to be swayed by public opinion, then no war can ever be won, for it is seldom that a war is popular throughout its term. When you make the commitment to war, it is for better or for worse. Simply because history measures these things over many years, not at the instant Robin Wright or Michael Isikoff writes their latest piece on it.

To: SilentZ who wrote (192208)	6/29/2004 6:01:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578880

Z, 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. Just think how preposterous what you just said is. You seem to be asking for guarantees. There are no guarantees. What guaraneees did Churchil have, in standing virtually alone vs. advancing German armies? If things turned differently, Britain could have lost half its population fighting losing war. You seem to be saying that you are for action A if in the long run it turns out to be be the winning option. But it is not known, it can't be known ahead of time how things will turn out. What you are saying is not leadership. It is John Kerry campaign. He is on both sides of the issue. If today, Iraq was peaceful, if Iraq had just concluded its first democratic elections, he would be talking about how he made it happen with his vote for the war, and he would be scheduling a trip to Iraq to have a photo-op with the newly elected leaders. If things were horrible, he would be campaigning as a born again Dean. Since things are quite bad, with possibiligy gor an improvement, he can't decide which bandwagon to jump on. 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. Aha! So if a stock doubles, you will tell that it was a good choice, if it tanks, you will tell us that it was not worth buying. Afghanistan decision is ok because it turned relatively ok, but you would be running around with crocodile (or real) tears if we had substantial losses and in a stand-off. Joe