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: Joe NYC who wrote (192998)	7/2/2004 9:25:37 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575612

Joe, re: So it is not the the action itself and whether it is justified, it is the cost that can be counted after the action has ended is what determines if the action is justified in the first place... Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you intentionally trying to twist my words? I said: I suppose the things they have in common is that they were all much smaller actions. That the justifications were humanitarian, not a phoney self defense argument. And that 1000 US soldiers were not killed, that they didn't drain the national treasury, that there was world support for the actions, that they didn't over-extend our armed services to the point where our National Guard is mostly overseas. You pick one point, the loss of life, and then you pick only one of the conflicts that you had brought up. OK, after all your qualifiers to try to make a cogent argument, let's just take that. How many of our troops went to Yugoslavia vs. Iraq? How many other countries participated in a meaningful way? Do you think that could have a significant impact on the number of US soldiers that were killed and maimed? Could we estimate that up front? Is your argument stupid? John

To: Joe NYC who wrote (192998)	7/2/2004 1:45:54 PM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1575612

>So it is not the the action itself and whether it is justified, it is the cost that can be counted after the action has ended is what determines if the action is justified in the first place... Gee, interesting contortions one has to go through. Kind of similar to Z's logic. Kerry seems to think the same way. Be on both sides while the outcome is in question, jump on the winning side when the outcome is known. No, that's not it at all. My issue is when the costs are predictable (maybe they weren't, but I predicted them), and the administration has to brush the preliminary data under the rug to get to do what it wants. I wouldn't be pissed off if I didn't expect this to happen. -Z