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: JohnM who wrote (38955)	4/11/2004 1:31:37 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793890

John, I agree: My recommendation to them is to hear it as a voice, in this case a voice we don't hear often. Add it to the other voices we hear to make up your own mind. Don't discount it simply because it doesn't say the exact thing you already believe. But we all do or tend to do what your last sentence suggests. That is why Riverbend is discounted by some people as well. I just heard this morning Bremer say how the people protesting the CPA and the US is so small. And his response to Russert reading criticism of the US/CPA from John Burns' driver/translator was "Isn't it grand that he can criticize us without having his tongue cut out" (Russert had just said that Burns himself was imprisoned for a few hours or days, I forget which, recently, but nevermind--Burns, BTW for those who don't know, is a NYT correspondent who has also reported on Nightline and Jim Lehrer; exactly why he was imprisoned I don't know). Saw Perle give chalabi a boost. What a crock.

To: JohnM who wrote (38955)	4/12/2004 3:03:28 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793890

John the article Sam posted was disappointing because it had no context for any of its claims. I thought it might be interesting because it was written by an Iraqi and I read those with anticipation. For instance, it claims the Coalition forces machine gunned a demonstration but gives not even a single remark about the circumstances. For instance, were the folk shot at armed, or unarmed? Were some of them shooting? How can I know whether what happened was a matter of misjudgement, malice, good tactics, or what? In effect, there was a lot of noise but little information. The whole article was of that nature. My recommendation to them is to hear it as a voice, in this case a voice we don't hear often. Add it to the other voices we hear to make up your own mind. There might be a whole lot of Guardian readers and writers who might listen to that voice but it's not telling them a great deal. Except the writer doesn't like what's going on. I say, so? Gimme info, gimme analysis, argue for your recommendation. For instance you want the UN in there. They haven't done well in places where there's shooting, often in places where people from my country are posted. I've got an interest. What makes it different this time? I read these voices all the time posted here and elswhere, and I usually pass them by, but Sam spoke directly to me about it.