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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148501)	11/23/2005 9:41:30 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 793603

Certainly the US should have been better prepared for the chance of it; I have no idea what that means. America has a finite supply of resources. America has many demands competing for that finite supply. Monday morning quarterbacking can always find better ways to allocate next time. And it may? improve next time. But I have not seen any credible analysis showing mis allocated or not allocated resources that were obviously wasted. Putting together balanced capable fighting or logistics or whatever units is not trivial. There are level of complexity on levels of complexity on levels of complexity. And I am suspect of any person saying look at this and on the surface showing some error. In reality it's always level of complexity on levels of complexity on levels of complexity. And I have seen to many out and out lies on out and out lies on out and out lies. There are to many who are out for finding any error real or imagined as deliberate mis-conduct.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148501)	11/23/2005 10:21:20 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793603

We may be talking about different things. Before the war, there were very knowledgeable people warning about what we were facing in terms of postwar problems: the tribalism, the lack of a national unity, the distrust of us as occupiers, the need to prepare ourselves for a costly and longterm commitment (Friedman wrote about this quite a bit)especially if we went it alone. To read all this and then see the total lack of preparation for these predicted results was disappointing to say the least. We obviously misread a lot about Saddam and his posturing and the actual situation in the country before the war. The dismal state of the country after we occupied seemed to catch people totally unaware-- Saddam had already let much of the infrastructure deteriorate to fund his military- and there we were to foot not just our own bill, but his. I believe there were many who did foresee much of this and did warn us. It was the reading of those books and articles that convinced me we should not go in when and as we did. But it was our own admin telling us about the greetings with flowers and convinced us it was necessary and welcome. We hoped for the best. I still hope for the best.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148501)	11/27/2005 8:50:04 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793603

I would submit that Al Qaeda's choice of a terrorist war in Iraq was not a predetermined result of "Arab psychology" but a conscious choice on their part. Perhaps at first, but AQ had never dealt with a thug like Zarqawi, who is in essence thumbing his nose at the "don't kill Muslims" advice being given to him by al Zawahiri. He was not part of the core AQ group of leaders and can afford to do things his misguided way. That's the problem with movements like Jihadism, the nutcases join up, and are uncontrollable. Zarqawi may very well end up being the best thing that happened to the US in Iraq and the ME. He's truly certifiable. On the other hand, Zarqawi probably knows that without a general conflagration caused by pouring gasoline over the fires of Sunni/Shia conflicts, his only recourse is to attack Americans. And there's very little profit in that.