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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (157454)	5/23/2003 5:43:35 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

A constructive and well-written piece, except for the repeated use of the word "zealot" as an ad hominem fallback whenever she wanted to discredit someone or some policy without the extra work of presenting evidence. But those minor indiscretions can be forgiven as she seemed to be striving for constructive criticism instead of the usual bashing and ranting of the Bush-haters you usually post. I would take issue with her on some points, though. She seems, for example, to think that the facts 1) that terrorist attacks continue rather than stopping entirely, and 2) that al Qaeda still functions rather than being totally out of business means that removing Saddam has heightened the risk to us rather than lowering it. I don't think it is reasonable to draw that conclusion based on the small amount of evidence available since the war ended. A few incidents of al Qaeda lashing out in response to the war doesn't mean they are more dangerous than they would be had we not invaded. She also seems to think, like the less coherent "critics", that the US could have somehow prevented looting (never mind that much of the reporting has sensationalized the issue, like all the hype over looted antiquities) or the rise of "spoiler" factions through better planning. Perhaps they could have shipped in trained MPs as some have suggested, and perhaps that would have lessened the looting somewhat, but it is unreasonable to think any plan could have prevented it. On the issue of "spoilers", they would exist regardless. But unlike Afghanistan, most in Iraq are what one might call "limited spoilers" - they make noise and sometimes trouble mostly out of fear that their interests are not adequately represented. These can be dealt with simply by ensuring their voices are heard. In Afghanistan, too many are "greedy spoilers" - warlords and others taking advantage of the situation to gain money or power at the expense of the still too weak central government. In both, you also have "total spoilers" - those who know they are excluded from power and may even be hunted as criminals. In Afghanistan, this includes the Taliban and al Qaeda. In Iraq, it is really just the senior Baathe party officials. Frankly, Iraq should be much easier to stabilize than Afghanistan. Still, nothing like this can happen over night as most of the critics seem to think it should. Still, constructive criticism is just that - constructive. It's refreshing to find you posting that instead of the usual blather.