Formerly About Applied Materials Message Board

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 : Formerly About Applied Materials

AMAT 223.95

+1.7%

Nov 21 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JSwanson who wrote (68323)	3/7/2003 10:04:17 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (3) of 70976

I think at this point we should discuss what we consider to be "winning" the war. Certainly it is a given that Saddam will be gone. But equally important in assessing how good of job Bush is doing in his crusade is the cost of that regime change. These are the factors that I can think of the top of my head: (1) conventional costs: - how much is spent on troops and bombs - how much is spent to bring in "allies" - how many US soldiers are killed - how many US equipment is lost. - how many Iraqis are killed (will it be acceptable to kill or cause death of tens of thousands of civilians? Where will we draw the line?) (2) objectives: - How much nuclear and chemical weapons will be found (if no nukes are found or too few WMD, will Bush continue to think they exist in Iraq and could be passed around to terrorists, or will he just shrug his shoulders and say this is not an issue anymore and it must have been destroyed during air raids). - Will Iraq maintain its totality (this is a longer term question) - Will there be democracy in Iraq or at least a confederation that all Iraqis can live with. - Will it reduce terrorism (what if it increases it, will we consider that Bush lost the war) - Will it make the region more stable? (3) Post war costs - How much essential Iraqi facilities will be destroyed that will have to be rebuilt immediately after war (e.g. water, medical, chemical containment, etc) - How quickly will the wound between US and EU heal? How much will this war cost in terms of cooperation (and monetary) costs in seemingly unrelated parts? - How long will Iraq remain occupied? What if Bush proves he did not think through how to bring a stable regime in Iraq and ends up there for too long? - What if either another brutal dictatorship or military presence is required to keep the peace between all parties? What will be the cost of each mishap to US economy and currency? . I am not bringing these up as reasons of not going to war. I am simply interested in what the expectations are so that we can evaluate how successful this campaign is. Wherever possible, there should be dollars and cents assigned to the answers. For example, if it turns out that we have to maintain strong military presence in Iraq beyond the stated 2 years so as to "help and advise" the Iraqi regime, then that is a cost which should be added to war. Without having some clearly stated expectation, Bush can claim victory just because he removed Saddam. But I like a stricter measure of performance. Sun Tzu

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next