Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tekboy who wrote (132407)	5/10/2004 1:53:47 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Following your links back to James Fallows Nov 2002 Atlantic article, I am reminded of what war critics predicted: Saddam gases Coalition Troops; Saddam inflicts massive casualties on the way down; Saddam gases Israel and the Israeli response ignites a regional war; Millions of refugees; Burning oil fields; General Iraqi vengeance-taking and disorder; Immediate civil war; The most accurate description of what has happened, partial order (most of the country is pretty stable; that part doesn't make the news) with a running Ba'athist and Al Qaeda insurgency, was not even on the list of possibilities. The critics were generally too busy explaining how it was impossible for 'secular' Saddam to ever make common cause with Al Qaeda. Which is why the critics' current arguments get a somewhat jaundiced response from me: 1) Iraq is going badly (gotta admit that) 2) Iraq is going to hell right now (your panic is not evidence) 3) I predicted this (you did not) 4) My prediction would have prevented this problem (no, it wouldn't have, because your prediction had nothing to do with the case)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next