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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (222189)	3/4/2007 3:11:33 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, your brilliant ancestors must be spinning in their graves at how you've lost your sense of balance. That same inability to see things objectively probably makes responding to you a waste of time but, for some reason, I can't give up on you so I'll try again. "It has not been validated that it can win wars." Of course not. Terrorist tactics used against occupiers are not intended to "win wars." Where did you get the idea that they were? If you'll recall the Israelis didn't "win the war" against the British using such tactics anymore than the Vietnamese against the Americans, the Afghans against the Russians of the Palestinians against the Israelis. " In case you didn't notice, Israel is standing and is widely judged to have won the last intifada." Yes, I did notice that Israel is still standing and I'm damn glad of it. But in case you didn't notice, Israel is no longer standing in the West Bank, Britain is no longer standing in Israel, Russia is no longer standing in Afghanistan, America in no longer standing in Vietnam and America will not much longer be standing in Iraq. And what do they all have in common? All of them changed policy and ceased their occupation of foreign lands in large part because the tactics designed to change the cost side of their cost benefit analysis were highly effective. In this age where terrorism is the preferred strategy of those who choose to make powerful nations pay for policies the terrorists detest, you surely cannot have failed to notice that suicide bombers, ieds, sniper attacks, and other less than "according to Hoyle" tactics are extremely effective? "The Iraqi war is still ongoing, with 95% of the action not being reported at all one way or the other. It is not lost, unless America runs." Are you inferring that there's something "95%" big out there that's not getting reported? Maybe the "lack of actionable intelligence" doesn't mean the Iraqis actually support the insurgents? Maybe the 3,000+ dead are only 5% dead? Maybe the hundreds of billions of dollars spent are 95% unspent? Maybe the dead Iraqis have 95% less drill holes in them than we think? Maybe the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who think it's ok to kill American soldiers are only 5% certain? What exactly is that 95% that isn't being reported and how should it change our views? And simply saying it is "not lost unless America runs" doesn't mean anything. Every conflict isn't lost until someone runs. The key is to take an objective look ahead and decide; is it doable, is it worth the cost, and is there some other way? Cause, hey, if you get all bloody running your head against a brick wall, why keep it up? "But you want this defeat so bad you can taste it." Where does THAT come from? Do you automatically assume that those who disagree with you have horrible motives? I think you confuse my refusal to ignore the realities of a war doomed to failure with a desire to see failure. If I'm wrong why don't you point out some language I've posted that supports the grave charge you've leveled. Or maybe I'm in league with 2/3 of Americans who want to see us get out of Iraq and the majority who think the war was a mistake? If your favorite team is down 50 points with 10 seconds left in the game do you turn and viciously attack anyone who says they should just let the clock run out as "wanting defeat so badly [they] can taste it?" "You think we have been drenched in blood? America took more casualties on single days in WWII than it has in this war. We would have surrendered to Germany and Japan in 1942 if our leaders had been anything like you." Really Nadine? What is it about the logic of cost/benefit analysis that you simply cannot comprehend? Do you apply simple black and white logic to all complex problems? So, as I said, the effectiveness of terrorism has long ago been validated as a great idea for weaker forces to use against much more powerful occupying forces. If you think you can keep that secret you must think the rest of the world is as radical in their pro-Israel/America views and as blindered by cheerleading spirit as you are. Ed