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: epicure who wrote (228545)	4/24/2007 4:05:34 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Using the Doc analogy, if it is important (like war) get a 2'nd opinion. So you don't like Scott, why not ask Hans Blix, the guy who was then tasked with heading up the UN weapons inspections? I find it rather duplicitous that those who are fond of quoting the UN resolutions as justification for war don't equally point out that the inspectors wanted continued dialog and inspections, not war. They also fail completely to acknowledge that there was a slight problem with UN teams passing info to the USA for attack purposes (as happened in 1998 also). People like to prattle about the law selectively. But there were lots of other similar dismals of more accurate information in favor of more appealing but wacky ones as well, even if you don't like Scott or Hans. What about Lindsay's $100-200B estimate for the cost of the war, which Bush & Co trashed? Lindsay was still out to lunch, but at least almost a factor of 4x better than the Admin & Defense were. Oh well, why use a good source when a lousy one will serve your purposes better?

To: epicure who wrote (228545)	4/25/2007 2:02:46 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So what really matters when facing a problem is that you find the right solution and use the right information. HOW you get that information may be of concern to people who are against certain vices in government, but that has to be a much lower priority than actually get the right information and being right. Let me get this straight. Next time you have an unknown illness and need a diagnosis, you will be perfectly happy to go to a paid spokesman for a certain drug company, so that he can recommend his firm's product for you? No? Thought not. What you are really saying, if you could unwind the circularity of your argument, is that you should make all important choices using 20/20 hindsight. Because it's only AFTERWARD that you get to find out if the choice was right or not. Not an option for people who live in realtime.