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: Hawkmoon who wrote (131432)	5/4/2004 8:19:45 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

I wish there was some satisfaction in being right, but alas, all people like me get is hostility aimed at them for being right. Not only was I right about Iraq, but in 1999 I posted that I thought the market might be taken down by a large terrorist event (I'd actually forgotten I posted that, but someone posted it to me, and told me how prescient that post was, considering what happened.) At the time I was suggesting people buy MAGSF, which was an Israeli imaging company that spiked on terrorist events- especially ones involving planes. I reasoned that there would be more events with planes, eventually, because it's an easy thing to do, and very showy, and I was right about that too- of course I thought that was low hanging fruit, but you'd be surprised how many people didn't agree. What kind of support can I offer? And do you really have any right to be annoyed at "people like me" when we didn't cause the problem, and only want to see a decent solution to it? You are probably confusing people like me, with other people you read on SI who are more extreme and who are not like me- please do not do that. I can tell you that you are heading down the wrong path if you try to subdue Iraq by force- I do not think it can be done, in a way compatible with our objectives, nor do I think we can transfer power by June, because there is no one credible to transfer it to, and if we transfer to non-credible authorities, and leave them with a country in ruins, we will (and should) be blamed. We must try to build a real coalition in Iraq, or find another strongman quickly, or be ready to partition the country. I do not think option number one will work; option two is risky, and might look really awful short term, but is better than nothing, and I can say the same about option three. And, imo, those are the choices we have- of course options we would not like are also available- for example, we leave a weak leader or group in charge, and Iraq immediately flips to Islamic government, I don't count that as one of our options- although it, and civil war, are certainly possible outcomes if we play it wrong. What kind of support would you like me to offer? We screwed up and now we must do damage control- the first step of damage control is to admit there is a damage control problem, realize that there are no pretty solutions, and move forward with diplomacy and cunning. If I were in charge I would be moving forward ASAP on options two and three, and praying for option one, but not counting on it.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (131432)	5/5/2004 9:15:57 AM
From: GST	Respond to of 281500

<Kerry, were he president right now, would have my backing to do what is necessary to secure a stable and secure Iraq, even if it required an increase in the size of the military...> To do what is necessary?? Do you really mean that?? What if a civil war is necessary?? What if a new dictator is necessary?? Having bungled the diplomacy, the war and its aftermath, what is "necessary" is not automatically "more of the same". And "more of the same" is all you seem to preach.