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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (485121)	6/2/2009 11:59:16 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573850

I posed this question to someone else on the thread privately. I would like to open it to public debate without rancor. Proposition. US got into iraq because intel was that saddam had wmd and was working on nukes. If that was in fact the case would: 1. Saddam would have been a threat because he was an unstable and dangerous enough character to either use or proliferate those weapons, even to terror groups he had little relationship to (as in tactical alliance against common enemy, used thru history) 2. Gore if had won the election and faced with the same intel, have done similar things. History of clinton admin tells us there was a strong belief that saddam posed a strategic threat with wmd and strong action might be taken if they got a shot at him. Now i know he didnt have them. And i also believe that Blix would never have convinced anyone of this because most reasonable folks thought saddam was hiding something. Few here even the libs thought that he was faking it to improve prestige. No argument that this was an intel blunder on our part and the worlds part but still the questions above are interesting to me and wonder whether folks can be reasonable and removed bush and clinton hating from the table for a second to discuss rationally.

To: tejek who wrote (485121)	6/2/2009 1:49:55 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573850

Ted, > They laughed at Edison when he said he could provide light without using gas or kerosene. Edison was an innovative and hard-working genius who spent his entire life making his ideas work. He was also a businessman and entrepreneur who made his fortunes through selling and mass-producing his work. Lots of inventors were trying to work on various forms of the light bulb, but Edison was the guy who came up with the first practical version of it. You hear about Edison's successes, but rarely do you hear about his failures. For example, he argued against transmitting electricity via AC (Alternating Current), claiming it was too dangerous. He even publicly electrocuted animals to prove it, but regardless, all power transmission is now via AC because it's cheaper and easier. But regardless, Edison is still one of the most honored inventors of our time. And this is the kind of stuff that inventors are made out of. I doubt Michael Moore has any clue about what it takes, much less have any idea on how to foster the next generation of innovators. Tenchusatsu