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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (49035)	2/13/2008 12:03:06 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543106

Lane3; But it would depend on the cost, risks, and rewards of all the alternatives and their probabilities of success. Yes of course - great statement as is the rest of your post. What you ask is the exact questions that needed to be asked before we invaded. That is to look at and see the entire big picture. These are the cost, risks and rewards that should have been asked by Hillary and McCain - before we went in not after. To give either McCain or Hillary a pass on their original judgement and now expect they will now get it right makes no sense to me. The argument that they were just giving Bush the authority never expecting him to use it is one of the most bogus arguments shrouding the debate on this war. Should poor judgement be rewarded? I don't think it should. If you listen to Obama speeches and listen to those who know him well and read his book, you realize that unlike those with a narrow single track mind with blinders on unable to see the big picture, - Obama see's the big picture. Obama took a stance that was immensely unpopular at the time - he will ask those questions you ask and is now parroted by Clinton when he originally said ....."we need to be as careful getting out as we were reckless getting in". steve

To: Lane3 who wrote (49035)	2/13/2008 5:15:35 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 543106

>>But it would depend on the cost, risks, and rewards of all the alternatives and their probabilities of success. I don't presume to know enough to tackle that analysis. What I do know is that rejecting that unattractive prospect independent of the alternatives and all their consequences is short sighted. Like I said before, there's no do-over. If pulling out is embraced as a proxy for a do-over wish, that's not healthy.<< Lane - I agree. Like you, I thought going into Iraq was a terrible idea, but now that we are there we have an obligation to finding some responsible way of getting out without leaving the Iraqi people in a lurch. What's missing in a lot of the discussion about Iraq is a discussion about Afghanistan, too. We have to figure out what we need to do there as well. And given that our resources are finite, the two are connected. The way I see it, changing the way we engage with both our allies and our enemies worldwide is going to be an important part of dealing with both situations. I'm not suggesting that anyone can waltz in and magically make everyone like us again. But clearly, we have to be more aware of the fact that we can't just dictate the rules for the whole world to follow. There has to be a more constructive way. - Allen