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: John Carragher who wrote (120752)	11/30/2003 11:28:14 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi John Carragher; Re: "I wonder who to believe, this guy used to write for latimes so he could be fabricating.. He sounded convincing on fox news the other night with tony snow." If you assume that every journalist who has ever written for the LA Times is a fabricator I have great pity on your reasoning abilities. I assume that you don't mean quite what you are saying. The world is far too complex to allow such simple techniques for distinguishing between what is true and what is false. And besides, it is not the fabricators that you need to worry about. They're not nearly as convincing as the idiots who believe that they know something. For that matter, the argument is "ad hominem", which means that instead of speaking to the facts of this particular situation, an analysis is made according to the perceived veracity of the speaker. While this is known to be a false technique of logic, it is human nature to use this, especially in situations where the audience is trying to decide a question that they know nothing about. Generally speaking, following the people who are "convincing" is not a good idea. Hitler was convincing as hell. Most of Germany heard and believed, largely because Hitler told them what they wanted to believe: that their cause was just and that they would win. This whole Iraqi fiasco has been perpetrated by people saying very reasonable and convincing things, but without the numbers and facts to back them up. It's wonderful to have a bright, sunny, optimistic attitude towards life, but what the neocons did was to spin every fact into a reason why (before the war) it would be easy to turn Iraq into a democratic supporter of the US and Israel, and (after the war) the guerilla war did not exist, or (when it became obvious that there was a resistance), that it will not grow, and (now that it is clear that the resistance continues to grow) that things will reverse and the fiasco will end with a victory for the US. Zinsmeister's spin on the Zogby poll came out around September 17th. Zogby's denouncement came out around October 23rd. So the latest information you have on the subject is from Zogby, not Zinsmeister. It is not in human nature that we gladly admit our mistakes. Zinsmeister, along with most of the rest of the neoconservatives, supported the war and expected it to be a great success long before it actually started. So what do you expect him to do now, to admit that he was an idiot in his rosy forecasts before the war? Of course he won't do that. Like the Bush administration, he's putting on a happy face, singing a happy song, and hoping that things get better. But all it is is hope. If that weren't enough to convince, simply note that there are growing hordes of Iraqis still shooting the crap out of us and our allies, and they've just made November the worst month of the war (including the "hot" part back in March and April). Is that enough? How many of our boys have to die to make it REALLY convincing? Would 58,000 be enough? Humans have a VERY STRONG TENDENCY to believe what they want to believe. Zinsmeister took the Zogby poll result and ignored every single line that was against his desires. Wishes and hopes are great things, but like the military says, "hope is not a war plan". To analyze the Iraqi situation, simply take a look at the facts. The simplest fact is that 7 months after Bush gave a speech announcing the end of "major hostilities", the bloodiest (for the US and its allies) month of the war (so far) has just gone by. -- Carl P.S. If Zinsmeister knows so much about Iraq and knows so much about how the guerilla war is going there, then how come he wrote this on October 20th, just days before the start of the bloodiest month of the war: ... If Americans show some patience, they'll gaze upon many heartening transformations in Iraq a few months and years from now. csmonitor.com Also, on October 29th he wrote: ... The number of our soldiers killed in combat since U.S. forces swept across Iraq in May is less than the number of police officers killed in the U.S. this year guarding our own streets. ... aei.org Now the fact is that about 165 officers are killed on duty in the US per year. In Iraq, we lost 77 soldiers just in the month of November alone.