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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (93976)	4/16/2003 5:40:23 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your claim that it was either the museum or the oil infrastructure is silly. I made no such claim. It is the claim that the the museum could possibly have been singled out and protected is easy in hindsight. A plan that would have protected the museum would have to have protected every cultural and historic location because there was no way of knowing what sites would be targets of the mob. It is easy to say, in hindsight, that one building should have been protected, it is much harder in the real world when you would have to protect many buildings to ensure they were are safe from the crowds. If the museum had been protected where else might the mob gone? What might have been the mob reaction to being thwarted? What's the worst case scenario and what troop levels are needed to protect the troops in the worst case scenario. The idea that a few trucks and a few marines in one location to protect the museum is a fantasy not a military plan. Now THAT would erase a lot of the bad publicity and even reverse the bad feelings. The fact that the museum story is the big bad story of the war is SUCH GOOD NEWS it brings a tear to my eye. Of all the horrible possibilities that can come from the mistakes of war, this is the bad news from this war. Thank God. Paul