The ..2012.... Political thread
-
mustangsally10:
The middle east has been a threat for a long time. I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton (much better than bu$h) but he did recognize that threat and took precaution. Bush ignored threats that OBL was going to attack us and we had 9/11 (information is everywhere-do your own work). Then he attacked a country that was not involved in the attacks using the excuse of WMD when at that time it had been proven that they did not have WMD...it was for oil. That is common knowledge now-the world knows.
If it was for oil as you suggested, then why are we now nearly five years later, paying $100/barrel for it? Doesn't make sense for me.
-
jaipur:
mustangsally10:
The middle east has been a threat for a long time. I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton (much better than bu$h) but he did recognize that threat and took precaution. Bush ignored threats that OBL was going to attack us and we had 9/11 (information is everywhere-do your own work). Then he attacked a country that was not involved in the attacks using the excuse of WMD when at that time it had been proven that they did not have WMD...it was for oil. That is common knowledge now-the world knows.
If it was for oil as you suggested, then why are we now nearly five years later, paying $100/barrel for it? Doesn't make sense for me.
Because Bush, Cheney are oil men, and so is Condi Rice, who has an oil tanker named after her. Last year, oil companies made the largest profits in history, until the end of this year when the profits will make last year seems like pennies.
-
mustangsally10:
The middle east has been a threat for a long time. I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton (much better than bu$h) but he did recognize that threat and took precaution. Bush ignored threats that OBL was going to attack us and we had 9/11 (information is everywhere-do your own work). Then he attacked a country that was not involved in the attacks using the excuse of WMD when at that time it had been proven that they did not have WMD...it was for oil. That is common knowledge now-the world knows.
You're either deluded or flat-out intellectually dishonest, probably the latter.
-
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
I think the military (and the CIA) will do everything it can to keep Obama out of the White House. I just wonder how far they will go.
I don't agree. They are not that powerful The people would rise up against any hint of a military type of government Phillip - please promise that you make peace with Peace Train even if all two of you can do is agree to disagree. I'm not taking sides - you just post more frequently that Peace Train. We all need to stand for peace and live up to that name.
I'm not saying a military style government, but the military and the CIA have alot invested in Iraq, and they are not going to let someone who promises a full pullout( though I think he will change his position before the election) as commander in chief. They will do everything to get McCain in there if Obama is the democrat nominee. As for peacetrain, he/she likes to distort what I meant, but he/she is a student so I don't take much stock in his/her opinion. the engine's not quite running.
I still don't agree the military has had its ups & downs depending upon the leadership. When the Democrats controlled the Congress & Senate while Bill Clinton was President - the military was weakened and even made more vunerable (case in point USS Cole). Bill Clinton made very big military cuts - it was considered a luxary for the Navy to refuel at sea in some semi-unfriendly nations. The oilers used to refuel at sea were junked following his directive, & the rest is history.
Best I recall, the republicans took control of congress in 1994, two years after he was elected.
-
jaipur:
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
I think the military (and the CIA) will do everything it can to keep Obama out of the White House. I just wonder how far they will go.
I don't agree. They are not that powerful The people would rise up against any hint of a military type of government Phillip - please promise that you make peace with Peace Train even if all two of you can do is agree to disagree. I'm not taking sides - you just post more frequently that Peace Train. We all need to stand for peace and live up to that name.
I'm not saying a military style government, but the military and the CIA have alot invested in Iraq, and they are not going to let someone who promises a full pullout( though I think he will change his position before the election) as commander in chief. They will do everything to get McCain in there if Obama is the democrat nominee. As for peacetrain, he/she likes to distort what I meant, but he/she is a student so I don't take much stock in his/her opinion. the engine's not quite running.
I still don't agree the military has had its ups & downs depending upon the leadership. When the Democrats controlled the Congress & Senate while Bill Clinton was President - the military was weakened and even made more vunerable (case in point USS Cole). Bill Clinton made very big military cuts - it was considered a luxary for the Navy to refuel at sea in some semi-unfriendly nations. The oilers used to refuel at sea were junked following his directive, & the rest is history.
Best I recall, the republicans took control of congress in 1994, two years after he was elected.
But, the Republicans did not have one in the Commander In Chief office - therefore the military stayed weakened w/o the approval of the President.
-
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
mustangsally10:
The middle east has been a threat for a long time. I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton (much better than bu$h) but he did recognize that threat and took precaution. Bush ignored threats that OBL was going to attack us and we had 9/11 (information is everywhere-do your own work). Then he attacked a country that was not involved in the attacks using the excuse of WMD when at that time it had been proven that they did not have WMD...it was for oil. That is common knowledge now-the world knows.
If it was for oil as you suggested, then why are we now nearly five years later, paying $100/barrel for it? Doesn't make sense for me.
Because Bush, Cheney are oil men, and so is Condi Rice, who has an oil tanker named after her. Last year, oil companies made the largest profits in history, until the end of this year when the profits will make last year seems like pennies.
Seems to me oil companies get their product from many sources, not just iraq if it indeed does make a substantial contribution at all.
-
Andy_Shofar:
jaipur:
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
Andy_Shofar:
PHILLIP:
I think the military (and the CIA) will do everything it can to keep Obama out of the White House. I just wonder how far they will go.
I don't agree. They are not that powerful The people would rise up against any hint of a military type of government Phillip - please promise that you make peace with Peace Train even if all two of you can do is agree to disagree. I'm not taking sides - you just post more frequently that Peace Train. We all need to stand for peace and live up to that name.
I'm not saying a military style government, but the military and the CIA have alot invested in Iraq, and they are not going to let someone who promises a full pullout( though I think he will change his position before the election) as commander in chief. They will do everything to get McCain in there if Obama is the democrat nominee. As for peacetrain, he/she likes to distort what I meant, but he/she is a student so I don't take much stock in his/her opinion. the engine's not quite running.
I still don't agree the military has had its ups & downs depending upon the leadership. When the Democrats controlled the Congress & Senate while Bill Clinton was President - the military was weakened and even made more vunerable (case in point USS Cole). Bill Clinton made very big military cuts - it was considered a luxary for the Navy to refuel at sea in some semi-unfriendly nations. The oilers used to refuel at sea were junked following his directive, & the rest is history.
Best I recall, the republicans took control of congress in 1994, two years after he was elected.
But, the Republicans did not have one in the Commander In Chief office - therefore the military stayed weakened w/o the approval of the President.
It's congress who controls the purse strings though....but you are correct that in order to balance the budget, it was the military that took the hits.
-
jaipur:
PHILLIP:
jaipur:
mustangsally10:
The middle east has been a threat for a long time. I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton (much better than bu$h) but he did recognize that threat and took precaution. Bush ignored threats that OBL was going to attack us and we had 9/11 (information is everywhere-do your own work). Then he attacked a country that was not involved in the attacks using the excuse of WMD when at that time it had been proven that they did not have WMD...it was for oil. That is common knowledge now-the world knows.
If it was for oil as you suggested, then why are we now nearly five years later, paying $100/barrel for it? Doesn't make sense for me.
Because Bush, Cheney are oil men, and so is Condi Rice, who has an oil tanker named after her. Last year, oil companies made the largest profits in history, until the end of this year when the profits will make last year seems like pennies.
Seems to me oil companies get their product from many sources, not just iraq if it indeed does make a substantial contribution at all.
We will all find out about a decade or so after Bush leaves the Executive Mansion.
-
Its not that there is any shortage of oil. It the future traders running the price of a barrel of oil up and the processing plants that have cut down production of oil . Oil companies contol this. This Bush can contol. He also is sitting on oil reserv that if he just released 10% of it into the market would easy some of the burden and would be a hit to the pocket books of the oil companies. What oil companies are left thanks to the Clinton's, who allowed them to merge and now we have like what 5 world wide.(another reason to keep your eye on Hillary) Bush family are a powerful oil family. Powerful! Also why are there still taxes being put on top of the already TOO HIGH gas prices. It like there training us to keep these prices falsely high. We need to nationalized the oil industry in the US. Price would fall so low.
-
The Senate is at an 11% approval rating -- three of these Senators are running for the office of President Why I don't have all the confidence in the world for any of them.
-
The_Fool:
The Senate is at an 11% approval rating -- three of these Senators are running for the office of President Why I don't have all the confidence in the world for any of them.
I agree.....like I have said many times here....SCARY!!!
-
mustangsally10:
Here is interesting article that you will need to read as it includes the projected amount of the US deficit in January 2009 to be about 400 billion usd http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/budget_deficit/ And here is US Dept clock: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ which is kind of fun to watch if you enjoy watching dept grow by the seconds And not to be outdone here is the Cost of Iraq War Clock which also shows the cost of the war as it increases by the second http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home All brought to you courtesy of the Republican Pary of the US and the US taxpayers Peace
according to the Congressional Research Service the Iraq War is costing US taxpayers $222,222 PER MINUTE That is something to be scared of... The Cost of Iraq War Clock above is interesting because you can set it to tell you how much of a share of cost your state is paying
-
JennyLP:
The_Fool:
The Senate is at an 11% approval rating -- three of these Senators are running for the office of President Why I don't have all the confidence in the world for any of them.
I agree.....like I have said many times here....SCARY!!!
Things have been even worse Take some comfort in that.
-
Thanks for those sad but true links, ms10. Voter apathy in the U.S. has got to stop. If you are eligible to vote by all means vote. Everyone who votes should keep in mind that Sen. McCain wants to see this war to victory which is an ambiguous term that will cost more money and more lives - not a good thing. Sen. Obama does not have the experience to lead this nation, period! He is a freshman Senator. What's his rush? I don't understand all the fuss and pandamonium around him. I know everyone wants to go green for the sake of the environment but we shouldn't go green when it comes to choosing an inexperienced candidate to lead our nation. "ABC News" did an investigative report on Sen. Obama's Illinois Senate voting history yesterday which brought to light that Obama voted "present" on many issues not "Yes" or "No" which tells me that he was there for the vote but neglected to cast a vote. Now that's experience. : Also, he has talked about sending troops into Pakistan. Let's put another country on our war plate along with Iraq and Afghanistan. : Utterly ridiculous. If you attempt to talk to all our enemies without preconditions, as Obama proposes, some of them are of the shoot before they see the whites of our eyes way of thinking. That's dangerous. There are radical factions out there. If Obama would get another term as State Senator under his belt then I might see him as a viable candidate, but not now! Whatever you think of the Clinton's past personal lives they have experience in government and Sen. Clinton has an exit strategy for this war. George W. Bush squandered a surplus that the Clinton Administration left behind and now we have trillion dollar debt but at least Americans got a tax rebate and Bush went to war against the wrong country - a war that Sen. McCain wants to continue. : The middle class prospered under President Clinton as did the country. Mrs. Clinton has experience as a Former First Lady and is in her second term as a U.S. Senator. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has spent the majority of his term as a Freshman U.S. Senator campaigning for President. If I were his constituent I would be angry. That, to me, does not constitiute experience. Please do not take this post out of context. Read my other posts in this thread to know where I stand. Also I will not argue with anyone until we are blue in the face because this is my view and all things should be considered by the undecided voter. My view is here for your consideration - nothing more.
-
Fan Since 1964:
Thanks for those sad but true links, ms10. Voter apathy in the U.S. has got to stop. If you are eligible to vote by all means vote. Everyone who votes should keep in mind that Sen. McCain wants to see this war to victory which is an ambiguous term that will cost more money and more lives - not a good thing. Sen. Obama does not have the experience to lead this nation, period! He is a freshman Senator. What's his rush? I don't understand all the fuss and pandamonium around him. I know everyone wants to go green for the sake of the environment but we shouldn't go green when it comes to choosing an inexperienced candidate to lead our nation. "ABC News" did an investigative report on Sen. Obama's Illinois Senate voting history yesterday which brought to light that Obama voted "present" on many issues not "Yes" or "No" which tells me that he was there for the vote but neglected to cast a vote. Now that's experience. : Also, he has talked about sending troops into Pakistan. Let's put another country on our war plate along with Iraq and Afghanistan. : Utterly ridiculous. If you attempt to talk to all our enemies without preconditions, as Obama proposes, some of them are of the shoot before they see the whites of our eyes way of thinking. That's dangerous. There are radical factions out there. If Obama would get another term as State Senator under his belt then I might see him as a viable candidate, but not now! Whatever you think of the Clinton's past personal lives they have experience in government and Sen. Clinton has an exit strategy for this war. George W. Bush squandered a surplus that the Clinton Administration left behind and now we have trillion dollar debt but at least Americans got a tax rebate and Bush went to war against the wrong country - a war that Sen. McCain wants to continue. : The middle class prospered under President Clinton as did the country. Mrs. Clinton has experience as a Former First Lady and is in her second term as a U.S. Senator. On the other hand, Mr. Obama has spent the majority of his term as a Freshman U.S. Senator campaigning for President. If I were his constituent I would be angry. That, to me, does not constitiute experience. Please do not take this post out of context. Read my other posts in this thread to know where I stand. Also I will not argue with anyone until we are blue in the face because this is my view and all things should be considered by the undecided voter. My view is here for your consideration - nothing more.
With all her 'experience' Clinton has not shown good judgement. First, she voted to give bu$h authority to invade Iraq, she did that by not reading the intelligence report , which showed that Iraq did NOT have WMD, but left this important decision to an aide. Then she recently voted to designate Irans military as a terrorist group, which would have given bu$h authority to invade Iran. Obama had the good judgement to oppose the war from the beginning here is an excerpt from his anti war speech in 2002. It is brilliant in it's vision and judgement: Here is an excerpt from a speech Barack Obama gave on October 26, 2002...long before he knew he would run for US president or even succeed in his campaign for US Senator from Illinois. It is brilliant in its use of reason, logic and judgement. Here tis: I don?t oppose all wars. After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration?s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. I don?t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne. What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income ? to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That?s what I?m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear ? I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He?s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I?m opposed to dumb wars. ---State Senator Barack Obama, Illinois, Oct. 26th, 2002 For entire speech which was delivered at an anti-war rally in Chicago on October 26, 2002 click here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech Experience can bring judgement but Hillarys unfortunately did not. She would be far better than McCain of course, who would try to keep us there forever. Peace
-
Everyone behind Obama is citing the fact that Hillary voted for the war, treating it as if we went to war on Hillary's vote alone. You need a majority of Congress to go to war not just one vote. Hindsight is 20/20 and what matters is where the candidates stand now. We can't live in the past we must live in the future. Exit strategy is what matters now. Mr. Obama's drug use in his youth as well as Mr. Bush's indiscertions with drugs and alcohol are in the past, as is Sen. Clinton's vote on the war. People learn by their mistakes. There is no perfect candidate because they are all human but I would rather vote for experience as a whole rather than inexperience as a whole. The state of things in the world are too important and volitle to afford a learning curve the likes of which Sen. Obama needs if elected President, based on his inexprience. Obama wants to sit down with our enemies and vows to have the strongest military in the world which all sounds well and good in theory but can he do it all alone? No. Do his supporters honestly think that our enemies will do a 360 because Sen. Obama gets elected? Having the strongest military in the world up to what point? Is it going to be a constant game of tag with our enemies to the point that the life of the average American is going to suffer while we fund the strongest military in the world? When John Kerry talked about a world round table people laughed at him saying the idea was not practical but now four years later here comes Obama, inexperience and all and the idea is suddenly practical. How soon we forget. You have to strike a balance between hype and practicality and not get caught up in the former. You quoted me so I responded. As I said, my view, which has not changed, is out there for the undecided voter to consider, as is your view. We just don't happen to agree.
-
Interesting comments. It is comforting to know others are engaged and struggling with what is before us. Some observations: There's an old saying: "hindsight is always 20/20". Clinton was not the only one who voted that way. Many others did as well. Given the circumstances at the time, I find no fault in that action. I believe Obama responded to the "present" votes in the Illinois state senate. You vote "present" if you cannot consciously vote yes or no, or if there is some part of the legislation that you have an issue with given your constituency. The US senators can "abstain". That, in and of itself, doesn't present a problem at least for me. Make no mistake, there are factions out to do us and the United States as a whole, harm. Witness the recent events in Belgrade and Bosnia against the US. I was speaking with a colleague of mine, whose opinions and viewpoints I respect, last week. Let me offer another approach in viewing the candidates: Two presidents dealt with enormous decisions early in their term of office in the 20th century. Truman became president when Roosevelt died in April 1945. He had no idea until after he assumed office of the manhattan project. Given the knowledge of the circumstances at that time, put one of the candidates in Truman's shoes and evaluate what decision they would come to. Be careful to look at the factors that existed in 1945 and relieve yourself of hindsight of whether it was "right" or "wrong" because when making that decision at the time, you will not know with absolute certainty whether it is. I found this exercise to be quite interesting and wanted to share it with everyone here.
-
Here are remarks today from Sen. Obama re the endorsement of Sen. Chris Dodd. Chris Dodd agrees Obama is ready to be president and would do the best job! Remarks on Chris Dodd Endorsement With Chris Dodd in Ohio As Prepared for Delivery Senator Barack Obama February 26, 2008 It has been my pleasure to serve alongside Chris Dodd in the United States Senate. It was a privilege to share the stage with him during his principled run for the presidency. And it is an honor to stand here with him today, and to accept his endorsement of my candidacy for President of the United States of America. I say that because Chris Dodd loves his country ? and believes in the ideal of public service ? as much as anyone I know. From his years as a young Peace Corps worker in the 1960s to this very day, Senator Dodd has devoted his life to building a stronger, fairer, healthier America; and a more just and secure world. Whether it was his work to protect voting rights; his long, determined battle for the Family and Medical Leave Act; his leadership on U.S. relations with Latin America; or his defense of our Constitution ? Chris Dodd has been at the forefront of some of the most important issues of our time. He has worked hard to preserve the right of workers to organize despite an onslaught from a hostile administration. He has been an advocate for our children, and no one has fought harder to improve our schools. He has been a voice for unity amid the often bitter debate over immigration reform. And I have seen firsthand on the Foreign Relations Committee his commitment to restoring our standing in the world. But as passionate as Chris Dodd is about the causes he champions, he also has that rare ability to disagree without being disagreeable. He is respected on both sides of the aisle for his authenticity, reason, and civility. And that is how, time and again, he?s been able to bring Democrats and Republicans together to make a real difference in the lives of the American people. He conducted his campaign for President with that same character. He resisted the cheap and easy shots, and elevated the debate with important ideas about how to address the great challenges we face. He and I share a deep commitment to take our country in a new direction. We know it?s time to end the war in Iraq. This war has not made us safer, it has overstretched our military, it has cost us precious American lives, and it is costing us billions and billions of dollars that could be better spent finishing the fight in Afghanistan and bringing relief to the middle class here at home. We know it?s time for an energy policy that ends our addiction to oil. We can?t keep buying oil from dictators while our planet is in peril and Americans are paying more at the pump. It?s time to embrace a clean energy policy that enhances our national security, while creating green jobs right here in states like Ohio. We know it?s time to reclaim the American Dream for the middle class. Instead of giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas, it?s time to put a tax cut in the pockets of working people and seniors. Instead of giving hundreds of millions to well-connected contractors in Iraq, it?s time to put America back together again by investing in our infrastructure ? an issue that Chris Dodd has shown real leadership on in the Senate. And instead of standing by while there?s a squeeze on the middle class, it?s time to expand the Family and Medical Leave Act so no American has to choose between a job and their family. We know it?s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd?s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish. The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I?ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens ? and set an example to the world ? that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America ? no one is above the law. It?s time to reject torture without equivocation. It?s time to close Guantanamo and to restore habeas corpus. It?s time to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track down and take out terrorists, while ensuring that their actions are subject to vigorous oversight that protects our freedom. So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States. Finally, it?s time to once again inspire this nation to rally behind a common purpose ? a higher purpose. Throughout his campaign, Senator Dodd spoke eloquently about the need to turn the page to a new era of public service. That is the legacy of his own family ? the legacy of a father who stood up to the Nazis at Nuremberg, and a young man who enlisted in the Peace Corps after he heard President Kennedy?s call to service on a cold Inauguration Day. I am running for president because I believe deeply in the promise of America ? without that promise, I would not be here today, because my story is not possible anywhere else on earth. I believe that each of us has an obligation to do our part to extend that promise ? not just for ourselves, but for our country. That?s why I share Senator Dodd?s commitment to dramatically expand public service programs like AmeriCorps. That?s why I will give all Americans more opportunities to serve their communities and their country. And that?s why I will work to put an end to the division and distraction in our politics, so that we can finally come together to meet the great challenges we face. I know that it will not be easy to deliver the change that we seek, but I know that the road will be easier with the support of Senator Dodd and the millions of voices who have joined our call for change. With his help, I know that we can unite our Democratic Party, and build a coalition that brings together Democrats and Independents and Republicans behind a mandate for change. Together, we can keep America?s promise in the 21st century. Peace
-
I am not sure why you keep quoting what this man has said......most of us have already heard it...just like you. Doesn't change my mind one bit.....
-
jaipur:
Interesting comments. It is comforting to know others are engaged and struggling with what is before us. Some observations: There's an old saying: "hindsight is always 20/20". Clinton was not the only one who voted that way. Many others did as well. Given the circumstances at the time, I find no fault in that action. I believe Obama responded to the "present" votes in the Illinois state senate. You vote "present" if you cannot consciously vote yes or no, or if there is some part of the legislation that you have an issue with given your constituency. The US senators can "abstain". That, in and of itself, doesn't present a problem at least for me. Make no mistake, there are factions out to do us and the United States as a whole, harm. Witness the recent events in Belgrade and Bosnia against the US. I was speaking with a colleague of mine, whose opinions and viewpoints I respect, last week. Let me offer another approach in viewing the candidates: Two presidents dealt with enormous decisions early in their term of office in the 20th century. Truman became president when Roosevelt died in April 1945. He had no idea until after he assumed office of the manhattan project. Given the knowledge of the circumstances at that time, put one of the candidates in Truman's shoes and evaluate what decision they would come to. Be careful to look at the factors that existed in 1945 and relieve yourself of hindsight of whether it was "right" or "wrong" because when making that decision at the time, you will not know with absolute certainty whether it is. I found this exercise to be quite interesting and wanted to share it with everyone here.
I like your colleague's approach and yes it is an interesting excercise. It was good of you to share it.