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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (21593)	4/13/2003 2:30:07 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206101

OT Kodiak, Your positions migrate faster than a duck in the fall. Sometimes I get so busy watching that happen that I forget to admire the wholesale attribution of thoughts, statements and beliefs to those who never thought, said or supported the postions you attributed to them. Some examples: 1. >>" Plenty of people had and voiced serious doubts about whether we'd be able to conquer a country defended on their home turf by 300,000 "elite" Republican Guard, especially when our actual fighting force was about 100,000 strong (so much of the 250,000 is support, you know). As late as 2 weeks ago General (I'm a Democrat) Clark was on CNN talking about the failed military plan, not to mention the idiots who attend the Pentagon press briefings and then write for the NY Times, the LA Times, etc."<< You have to know this is pure fiction. The "failed plan" flap never questioned whether we'd DEFEAT Iraq. It was simply an issue that arose based upon the recognition that our supply lines were vulnerable to attack from low-tech irregular forces and the perception that the initial plan hadn't factored in that level of imbedded resistance on the part of the Iraqis. It's not intellectually honest to attribute doubts that we could ultimately defeat the Iraqi forces to military minds like Clark's when you know better. 2.>>"now we are stuck with Jeez the Iraqis are looting, holy cow, LAWLESSNESS reigns in Iraq! Even Kofi Annan that spineless twerp is very very concerned about the looting of government offices (was it the plastic flowers or the used tires that made his heart tremble?), but he didn't give a rat's ass about WMD or the wholesale slaughter of people by Saddam Hussein whilst in power."<< Once again you trivialize a very serious point by ignoring the underlying issue. It's not about looting for looting's sake. It's about the war for the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and the Arabs that you were so jubilant about when the pro-U.S. demonstrations were shown on the tube. The fact of the widespread looting indicates that while we had a plan to remove one regime, we may not have had a plan in place to protect and care for them after we removed whatever civil structure they had before. Why do you think Rumsfeld was so agitated at the pictures of looting and why do you think he went so far to try to justify it as "natural in a freed society?" If we put them through a period of miserable existence they and the Arab world will be much less likely to think this was about the "oppressed" Iraqis and more likely to think that we didn't care enough about them to plan for their health care, their safety and their basic human needs. As you well know, this is a serious issue that's not just "sour grapes" on the part of serious commentators. 3. >>"Your big point is "wait and see" and "time will tell" which is basically the point of view of people who sit back and do nothing. Because, after all, time will tell. Won't it? 35 years of the Baathist regime and Saddam would have led to maybe 35 years of Uday and Ackass-Jay and then maybe more. Wait and see, sure that's a great idea for the people of Iraq."<< Well, you've got me here. I guess I'm not like you and I can't predict that when I see 200 demonstrators I can predict a great success and the affirmation of all the claims made by the administration. One thing that does make me wonder, though, is when you became so concerned about the people of Iraq and of Afghanistan. I think it's a little phoney for a man that wasn't the least bit hesitant to advocate the wholesale bombing of Afghan citizens in order to make sure we got a few terrorists to now be the champion of the oppressed. I'm sure you recall your callous posts on that subject. When did you become so caring? 4. >>"I have no idea how long the gratitude of the Iraqis will last, my guess is not too long. That's okay."<< That one's a classic. That's been one of my main points, along with the suspicion that a significant number of Iraqis might not even feel initial gratitude. If we don't have the strong support of the Iraqi people then the danger that this will become a failed enterprise from OUR POINT OF VIEW is tremendously increased. If you don't see the dangers of that event then you are, indeed, one who will not see. 5. >>"In fact, violence solves a lot of things, and will continue to do so. Violence solved Hitler. Violence solved Mussolini. Violence solved Imperial Japan."<< Good one. Why not turn it around. How about this; "Aggressive violence led to the downfall of Germany two times, Japan, France under Napolean, Italy and numerous other nations throughout history. Many were the strongest military powers of their day before they began their aggression." The world will not forever tolerate an aggressive power that exercises it's power in contravention of international laws. Every action creates a counteraction. We may be sowing the seeds of another arms race and this one may not expire with a sigh. And finally, 6. >>"but all I was asking for was an update on your "just 200 people, what does it mean?" statement (which implied that the Iraqi people were less than happy about being liberated). They seem pretty happy now, a lot of them. Don't you want to update your view? People aren't WRONG because they disagree with me, but they can be WRONG because they're WRONG."<< What part of what I've said don't you understand? I've said it twice and now I'll say it three times and pull our the lines so you can see them clearly: " I expect that when this is done we will see substantial celebrations but we should be aware of those that do not share in the rejoicing. Even among those that rejoice, the mood can change quickly if we don't handle things properly." "They may be representative of the majority, or even a huge majority, of the people of Baghdad, or they may not." "Hopefully this is the beginning of something momentous but it may be a little early to start getting giddy and chanting USA USA. I'm sure that some Iraqis, hopefully the majority, see this as a good thing. Hopefully their adverse feelings for Saddam will transfer into good feelings for America for ridding their country of his ugly rule. The problem is that there are undoubtedly some Iraqis who are on the fence and some who are fiercely anti-American. We know that's true because some are still voting against us-with their lives. What all this means won't be known for months, or years, and will depend in large part on whether the Bush administration has a workable plan for the post war period that is fair and perceived as just by the Iraqis, the Arab nations and the world." When you said my views "... implied that the Iraqi people were less than happy about being liberated," and that I should admit I was "WRONG" you surely knew that you were setting up a straw man. If you want to disagree with my statements, use my statements not some interpretation of them that ignores what I've actually said and fits your view of how others think. In the long run solutions that take time are often the most beneficial and the wisest. Those made in fear and anger and with a short term view of history are many times regretted and paid for with human suffering. These issues are much to complex to justify running around shouting with guns in the air while much of the world watches with fear and dismay.

To: kodiak_bull who wrote (21593)	4/13/2003 2:46:23 AM
From: nspolar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206101

OT Kodiak, you said: "Eurotrash-beloved Bill Clinton demolished an aspirin factory and lost 19 soldiers in less than a day in Mogadishu (just before exiting the country)." The same guy that lost 19 Americans in Saudi, put there by GW I. Since you are keeping fair score of what each president does and is responsible for: Who put those soldiers in Mogadishu in the first place? Who lost 241 Americans in the Beirut bombing and what did he do about it? Who lost the sailors on the Cole? Who kicked that little every bit as bad as Saddam Milosevic twerp out of Yugoslavia?