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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (5744)	8/23/2003 6:14:51 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793624

Great piece. Frankly, I think we should open the floodgates and pour as much money into Iraq as necessary. Unlike Afghanistan, this is one that can be fixed with enough money. Derek

To: LindyBill who wrote (5744)	8/23/2003 10:18:08 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793624

We believe the president and his top advisers understand the magnitude of the task (in Iraq). That is why it is so baffling that, up until now, the Bush administration has failed to commit resources to the rebuilding of Iraq commensurate with these very high stakes. Kristol & Kagan write that the Bush admin understands the magnitude of the Iraq project, yet they fail to provide adequate: 1) Soldiers 2) Money 3) Civilian personnel Given these realities, less ideologically-blinded observers may have concluded that: 1) The Admin does NOT grasp the magnitude of the project; or 2) There is another, hidden, objective

To: LindyBill who wrote (5744)	8/24/2003 1:26:19 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793624

It's become fashionable lately to criticize the administration for not having enough ________fill in the blank in Iraq. But I wonder if it's really needed. It seems to me we are up against the "law of diminishing return". If we give the Iraqi's too much in the way of assistance, will they do for themselves when that assistance is gone? If we give the Iraqi's too much military presence, will they be neglect in protecting their own country once we leave? Will they form the security apparatus needed to govern their nation? Knowing the balance of where the law of diminishing return reverses itself is more difficult than Kagan and Kristol have suggested in their piece. In fact, they don't address it at all, suggesting instead that more of everything is always better, and the law of diminishing return doesn't exist. In the end, the Iraqi people will have to find their own path. They will have to fix their own infrastructure problems after 35 years of neglect. They will have to provide for their own peoples safety, and they will have to find a way of navigating the torturous path toward democracy. Big media has focused on the problems in Baghdad, and the random bombings to fill our news pages. However, I wonder if the big picture of life in Iraq is really as bad as they suggest.