On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:36:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .

Not at all. When you are facing a threat and you have two choices, a
military strike or doing nothing (the absence of another idea), then
I'd say the military option is the better choice.

How do you know your leader was not presented with other ideas which he
rejected?

How do you know that he was?

I'm assuming he was because we know that some of his advisors are military
people, and we've heard polite, but smart comments from many of the brass
about how this was not exactly the best idea.

Rule #1 Never assume anything.

Many people have "ideas", which were either thrown out or cut into
ribbons in the board room. Yet nothing stops them from espousing those
same ideas in public where the same level of intelligent scrutiny may
not exist, which then allows these "ideas" to earn a certain degree of
credibility that they may not truly deserve.


Also, what would you think of a president who did not INVITE opposing
viewpoints so he could weigh all his options?

Are you suggesting that he didn't?

Granted, I'm painting your
leader in a favorable light which he doesn't deserve, but in theory, this is
how things should've been done.

What proof do you have that it didn't happen that way?


And another question, to be answered separately, in its own paragraph:

If you could somehow prove that your leader was not given other
suggestions,
do you understand why his entire staff of advisors should've been replaced
immediately? If you do not understand, explain why.

Why should they? If I understand your implication correctly, it would
be the same thing as firing all the rocket scientists at NASA because
they couldn't invent warp drive in the last 5 years. Maybe it's just
not that simple.

No, Dave. It's nothing like your analogy. If his staff included nothing but
homogenous thinkers, it should've been replaced because of their refusal to
hear other opinions.

You are basing your conclusion on an assumed premise, which may be
incorrect.

Maybe there ISN'T a viable alternative solution. You seem to think
that there is, and since no one has pushed it, they must be
incompetent and should be fired.

But you need to seriously take off the rose colored glasses, and
consider that what we are doing may be the only course of action, that
would stand the best hope of protecting our long term survival and
interests.

If we had been attacked by the country we invaded, you would be correct.

They are all part of the same picture.

Dave