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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2442)	1/20/2003 12:36:22 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

A Stirring in the Nation Editorial The New York Times January 20, 2003 A largely missing ingredient in the nascent debate about invading Iraq showed up on the streets of major cities over the weekend as crowds of peaceable protesters marched in a demand to be heard. They represented what appears to be a large segment of the American public that remains unconvinced that the Iraqi threat warrants the use of military force at this juncture. Denouncing the war plan as an administration idée fixe that will undermine America's standing in the world, stir unrest in the Mideast and damage the American economy, the protesters in Washington massed on Saturday for what police described as the largest antiwar rally at the Capitol since the Vietnam era. It was impressive for the obvious mainstream roots of the marchers — from young college students to grayheads with vivid protest memories of the 60's. They gathered from near and far by the tens of thousands, galvanized by the possibility that President Bush will soon order American forces to attack Iraq even without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Mr. Bush and his war cabinet would be wise to see the demonstrators as a clear sign that noticeable numbers of Americans no longer feel obliged to salute the administration's plans because of the shock of Sept. 11 and that many harbor serious doubts about his march toward war. The protesters are raising some nuanced questions in the name of patriotism about the premises, cost and aftermath of the war the president is contemplating. Millions of Americans who did not march share the concerns and have yet to hear Mr. Bush make a persuasive case that combat operations are the only way to respond to Saddam Hussein. Other protests will be emphasizing civil disobedience in the name of Martin Luther King Jr. But any graphic moments to come of confrontation and arrest should be seen in the far broader context of the Capitol scene: peaceable throngs of mainstream Americans came forward demanding more of a dialogue from political leaders. Mr. Bush and his aides, to their credit, welcomed the demonstrations as a healthy manifestation of American democracy at work. We hope that spirit will endure in the weeks ahead if differences deepen and a noisier antiwar movement develops. These protests are the tip of a far broader sense of concern and lack of confidence in the path to war that seems to lie ahead. nytimes.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2442)	1/20/2003 10:40:04 AM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 25898

Some psychological evidence that the Abiline paradox was at work in the decision to go to Iraq. usatoday.com Powell disagrees with Bush on affirmative action case "Wait!" you may say. This isn't about Iraq, this is Colin Powell disagreeing with Junior George just as Condi Rice did a few days ago. Why would these two close advisors pick now to publicly flout their disagreement with their boss when they have up until now been the most loyal and parroting of supporters? I submit that they feel ashamed for letting the Iraq situation spin off into an action that they know is wrong. This challenge is a compensation, they salve their self esteme by making sure that they go public with their ideas this time. Such an outcome is predicted by Dr. Harvey. Members experience frustration, anger, and dissatisfaction with the organization. Often this leads to the forming of sub-groups that take combative or blaming positions toward each other. The Abilene group begins asking themselves immediately, "Whose crazy idea was this anyway?" and thus starts the blaming cycle. whiskeyfoxtrot.com This public disagrement over Trent Lott and the University of Michigan are signs of the formation of sub-groups who cannot bring themselves to bring blame to the war decision (Bush has insisted that it is final!), so they bring blame at the next opportunity. TP