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: Knighty Tin who wrote (109506)	10/9/2007 7:18:09 PM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

KT, To begin with, I was among the first and few Americans that knew that the neocons driving the march to war were a bunch of B.S. artists. I definitely wasn't "snookered" as you say. I also seem to have to keep reminding you that I am a neutral observer in this. I don't "have a horse" or "hate a horse" in this race like YOU DO. As a libertarian, I am also "theoretically" very much against aggression. I think war should generally be a last resort and only used for self defense. However, as I've also repeatedly said, you have to actually understand risk and probability to understand why this was a close call and "might" have been an exception to the rule in the current environment. Most people think in terms of probabilities and results alone. It's a very common "thinking defect" in all areas of life. - They try to pick the winner of every race, win every hand etc... instead of thinking about the values - They don't appreciate that you can lose or get bad results and still have done the right thing - They don't understand that if you do something and it doesn't work, you can't tell whether doing nothing would have been even worse - They don't understand that sometimes your choices are limited to the better of two bad possibilities - They don't adjust their thinking to the current realities. The idea that an extremely low probability event can be such a monumental disaster that it must be avoided at all costs is not very well understood - except of course by smart super cat insurers like Warren Buffett. ;-) The significant risks associated with Iraq were all extremely low probability events. The problem was that even a 1%-5% probability of any of those specific events occurring was unacceptable to a real lot of people because the downside was so enormous. That's what made it such a tough call. If you don't think those downsides really existed, I don't agree. If you think they were only propaganda promoted by crazy war mongers, then I believe you are sadly mistaken, enormously idealistic about our world, overly cynical, or too consumed by your hate of the right to think clearly. Those risks were not limited to WMDs. They included oil issues and the global economy, threats to Israel, funding of terrorists, USD issues, already existing problems there etc... The only legitimate complaint is the lying, spinning, and fear mondering they used to make the case to the dummies. You don't have to agree with the mathematical conclusion "the right" made. Heck, I was 50-50. I'm not sure who was right even now. But IMHO to think it wasn't a close call is simply crazy. The results are meaningless. Let's leave this topic now. We are going around in circles. If you don't understand all this by now, I am never going to change your mind. I am also not going to be able to convince you that I am not defending the decision or teh right. I am saying that it was a tough decision that many on the left do not seem to understand because of their idealism and others don't seem to understand because they don't understand risk.