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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21808)	10/11/2004 4:09:28 PM
From: Bruce L	Respond to of 23153

<< After all, why would America want to open up that pressure cooker country to create chaos and stimulate terrorism? >> Because Iraq was a "failed state" whose very existence promoted terroism. I am now reading Francis Fukuyama'a new book, "State Building, Goverance and World Order in the 21st Century" and will soon give you a summary. Putting that aside, What is your reaction, my Brother, to Neocon's two posts re traditional liberals supporting the U.S. intervention in Iraq? Bruce

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (21808)	10/11/2004 4:30:02 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Respond to of 23153

Ed, I don't know that the article is not worth discussing, as people seem to be discussing it. I think it is key to remember where it appeared, what the editorial slant of that publication is, where it is geographically and who they are supporting for president. It was patched together by all sorts of vague words and really just kind of guided toward its very tenuous conclusion that that wily ole fox, Saddam Hussein, snookered us into taking his country whilst planning for "elusive and unconventional operations." These conclusions are just the sort of thing meant for head-nodders (those who simply read along and nod with each faulty presupposition), but are, in fact, ridiculous on their face. Saddam, who never gave up an inch of power, a megalomaniac and quite clearly one of the most paranoid leaders of modern times, was secretly plotting to give up not only the whole country but all of his rights to a post Saddam Iraq, to armed insurgents? This was a guy who routinely executed relatives and wouldn't take or make phone calls for long periods of time, and who had a number of "stunt-doubles"???? If you look at how the article was pieced together you can see disparate sound bites from 3 people were woven together to imply a conclusion. I'm not sure what other things Joulwan, O'Hanlon and Thompson said, we can only see what the reporter and his editor chose and how they put them together. BECAUSE it is the Boston Globe, one must be ingesting a huge grain of salt with this message. Kb