"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

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?

I have no proof, but I'd wager $1000.00 that I'm right. All one needs to do
is pay attention. When the things your leader says are different from
Stalin's only in terms of the language being spoken, it's obvious
something's seriously wrong.