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 (222501)	3/5/2007 1:12:03 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, with respect to addressing realistic views concerning the American/Iraqi debacle your record is one of consistency. You've been consistently wrong. You've consistently denied the validity of pessimistic, concerned views which were proven by subsequent events to have been accurate. You've consistently attacked the motives, patriotism and character of those who have presented pragmatic views. You've persisted in clinging desperately to every matchstick of news that might, MIGHT, someday signal optimism while denying every log caroming head on into our house of cards. And, worst of all, you've done this while our men and women are dying in that fiasco, while Iraqis are being killed by our troops, while hundreds of billions of dollars are being wasted on graft, corruption and a mission that will not succeed, while the world is more and more coming to view America as a dangerous and arrogant bully whose military might must be constrained by a new arms race and new anti-American alliances, and while the cause of terrorism is gaining new recruits, new finances, and new support among the world's populations. Given your miserable track record and the tremendous importance of getting it right, most people would have long ago been humbled. Most people would have long ago begun to question their basic assumptions. Most people would have opened up their minds and attempted to benefit from the wisdom of those whose views of the conflict have been proven more accurate. But you're not most people, are you Nadine? So, I asked you to list the projections you've made in the Iraqi/American conflict which reality had proven correct. After all, sometimes it's good to let reality slap you back to sensibility, but you ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to self reflect. I even asked you to simply admit that you've been consistently and totally wrong in your projections but, again, you refuse. Yet still you want to know why I have said: "You have it just about 180 degrees from right. The fact is that most places on earth will not be safer UNTIL the Middle East has been surrendered to Sunni and Shiite Islamist extremism." You even referred to that statement as "ridiculous," i.e., "You're the one who made the ridiculous statement that yielding the Middle East to Sunni and Shiite extremism would make us safer - now you back it up. Instead of blowing smoke." I'd like to just make it simple and tell you but I'm a big fan of the Socratic method of teaching. After all, "you can teach a man to fish" and all that. So let's see if you can find any thus-far hidden ability to think below the surface and tell me why someone might make that statement, and why it might be accurate? Care to spray a little WD-40 on that rusted tight brain of yours and see if it will actually turn over? I await your answer. Ed