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: cnyndwllr who wrote (222355)	3/4/2007 5:07:08 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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 Not so. Israel is standing in exactly the same places in the West Bank it was before the intifada, and as both sides know, but Israel won't say, the security fence is likely to become a border, which is why the Pals hate it so much. Israel lost all chance of keeping all the West Bank when it signed onto Oslo. That was it, the rest is arguments over the border. Are you inferring that there's something "95%" big out there that's not getting reported? I'm inferring from the HUGE discrepency in reports coming from freelance reporters and military sources and the MSM that the war is not being covered AS a war, but as a body count. Without the context that would allow the reader to make any sense of what is going on, what the sides are, who's winning, whose losing. Instead we have to scrounge among milblogs and bloggers to get any sense of the war - and no, I don't mean happy propaganda, I just mean reporting. For an example of what I mean by a report, see this blog entry Message 23338049 and let me know if you have seen any MSM reporter cover the situation in as much depth. 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? Because of the factor you have not even considered: what it will cost to lose. No place on earth will be safe from the troubles of a Middle East that has been surrendered to Sunni and Shiite Islamist extremism. Do you automatically assume that those who disagree with you have horrible motives? No, but when I watch those who disagree unable to imagine any worse evil in the world than George W Bush; when I watch them vote a new commander into the field and immediately pass a vote to undermine his command and deny him the support he needs, then I begin to ask myself, what are they more afraid of? That the commander might be defeated, or that he might win? Only in the latter case do their actions make sense. Unless they are just irresponsible fools, which is also a possibility. I think you confuse my refusal to ignore the realities of a war doomed to failure with a desire to see failure I will wait until I hear the generals and the troops say it's doomed to failure. They have been positive all the while, and if they are worried now, it's about the likes of you, not their chances in the field. I think it is you who have confused your expectations with your wishes. If Bill Clinton had startecd the war - and let's not forget he instituted the US policy of regime change in Iraq - would you have been saying it was doomed from day one? I very much doubt it. What is it about the logic of cost/benefit analysis that you simply cannot comprehend? What is it about war and the nature of an ideologically driven enemy that YOU cannot comprehend? Do you think that Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda and their supporters in the Muslim lands will stop fighting this war just because you do? They at least understand they are in a war.