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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (20988)	6/25/2003 10:18:45 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Respond to of 89467

"Winning battles in southern Italy was relatively easy for the Holy Roman Emperors. But then they faced the problem that the German barons did not wish to remain in the pestilential south. They wished to return to their mountains and cool weather and to take their retainers home with them. The Normans settled in the south and in Sicily, and married into the local gentry, so their influence could not be dislodged by whirlwind Imperial campaigns by either the Holy Roman or Byzantine Empires." John Julius Norwich, "The Normans In Sicily." Things haven't changed much in 9 centuries. If you don't plan to settle your own people there, your odds of changing a country are slim.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (20988)	6/25/2003 10:26:17 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Bush cronies had their postwar Iraq contracts in hand...and now that they are encountering problems that many projected they would, companies like Bechtel are demanding more tax dollars to cover their expenses....however, Lewis Lapham of Harper's wrote the definitive article about this debacle last year...October 2002.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (20988)	6/25/2003 11:48:26 AM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Anyone familiar with NATO operations in Bosnia and Kosovo should have understood that we needed two armies for this invasion. By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Duh! Come on Tom. It's a little late to be seeing the "shortcomings" in the neo-con plan now. When the preposterous fantasy that was the neo-con plan was being "discussed" last fall, you were "all for it". I kept thinking, "This plan is an ill-conceived boondoggle that does not take in to account the true nature of the Middle Eastern psyche. These guys just don't understand the Muslim world." My problem was you. You had always been my expert on the Middle East. How could you be in favor of the neo-con plan? Couldn't anyone see that a group that was behaving so incompetently on the diplomatic front with our friends, was incapable of the subtle deftness required for the proposed metamorphous of the Middle East? And what about a plan that leaves a sizable segment of your military exposed to the attrition that always occurs in the Middle East to a hostile occupying force? There’s nothing new here Tom. All easily predictable. Why didn’t/couldn’t you see it coming? Were you too blinded by some misguided hope that things could be “changed for the better”? That could only occur if the people in charge were careful, thoughtful planners with a through grasp of magnitude and intricacies of the task. Does that sound like the superficial, hubris-filled myopia that has consistently characterized the Bush team? Sorry, but I’m disappointed in you Tom. Anyway, it’s good to see you are finally opening your eyes to the obvious. JMO lurqer