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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (218141)	2/13/2007 12:47:33 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

". I can see the cost benefit argument but I don’t accept it. If all conflicts were determined on that alone, no corrupt oppressors would have been toppled since the beginning of time. No one would ever have sacrificed and taken risks to innovate, create, change and renew. " Then if we really need to win, and if you sacrifice the cost benefit analysis, why not more soldiers? Why not a draft, so we can put up an unstoppable force- for surely we could. Why not an overwhelming all out military attempt- if this war is truly important, and if we really mean to win it. Why not war taxes and war bonds? Why not? I mean either one means that it's imperative to win the war, or one doesn't. And if one means it, then actions should follow rhetoric. I don't happen to think it's imperative to "win" in Iraq- whatever that means, so I don't have to be for a draft, and more money spent there, and such things. But for those who claim it is imperative (or even just very important, or vital to terrorism, or whatever)... one either has to wonder about their judgment on how you achieve the imperative, or their honesty about the imperative.

To: one_less who wrote (218141)	2/14/2007 1:45:05 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Rough cut, your big picture view of the Iraq war is what? I have to ask because you post drivel like this: "Pragmatism is utility based. It doesn’t help to load your comments with terms like ‘unwinnable’ and 'we sent them to die' which are absolutely subjective, moral values laden, and of no practical benefit. I can see the cost benefit argument but I don’t accept it. If all conflicts were determined on that alone, no corrupt oppressors would have been toppled since the beginning of time. No one would ever have sacrificed and taken risks to innovate, create, change and renew. We live. When we are lucid, we wonder what makes life worth living and we make decisions based on those issues which we deem worthwhile. When we can find no cause worthwhile we fall into despair, even despondency." I've suggested that your idealistic, unrealistic outlook is not helpful and you come back with flower child gibberish????? Here's a bulletin: men, women and children are dying hard deaths based on the decisions we've made and are making in Iraq. That's the fact. To smugly post that, "Principles of decency are not just excuse talk, they are directive. I can see the cost benefit argument but I don’t accept it," is neither perceptive not helpful. In fact, it borders on the incomprehensible. What it is about a pragmatic discussion concerning the cost/benefits of the war that you object to? Do you make important decisions in your personal life without weighing the costs against the benefits? Do you simply throw up your hands and say; "I can't decide because I don't have a crystal ball," or do you use your life experiences to make the best projections possible and then make the choices that reflect your cost/benefit priorities? If you don't, you must be one of the few people in the world who don't. "It’s a fact that men and women have been dying since the dawn of time. You took the position that death and dying is a political issue. Go vote against death if it makes you feel better." Yes, death and dying IS a political issue when it's the death and dying of American soldiers and those they kill pursuant to the political policies of the President of the U.S. And yes, I voted "against death" when I voted for change in 2004 and 2006. What did you vote for? Finally, where does the accusation about partisanship come from? You might not be reading the news. The realization that Iraq is a huge, unmitigated failure that worsens with every month is not a partisan view. The man who best reflects my views, and has for years, is Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. Try listening to Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Read some articles from the conservative political pundits and see how they've "learned" the error of their thinking. The reality is that both you and Iktomi are wrong if you think that there is any way the Iraq war can be won with American power; any level of American power. It cannot be won and it will not be won that way. The sooner that all of America can understand that, the sooner we can begin to follow policy paths that lead up, not down. Ed