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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kikogrey who wrote (108414)	7/16/2007 9:02:31 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

I'm explaining how the people that invaded Iraq were thinking about the risks. I'm not evaluating the risks myself or defining the probability that justifies action. It's important to think about the potential downside of error and not just the probability. I dislike some of the neo-cons because I don't trust their loyaties, but I think they were trying to think about the risks properly while much of America was, and still is, not. The only issue is whether their estimates of the risks were correct. If they overestimated the risk, then invading was a huge error. Most people think it was an error because things didn't go well. That's a mistake because it tells you nothing about what the risks of inaction were and whether they have improved or worsened as a result of the action. I think things have worsened, but I still don't think it's a slam dunk that I am right. I don't know much about Pakistan, but the US must have faith that the current leadership has the nukes under control. If that government was about to be ousted in a coup and the fundamentalists were about to take control, I think they would re-evaluate the risks.