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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (138244)	7/20/2001 8:40:58 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1588367

I would put my money on Israel. Today, yes. Not pre- Gulf War. Iraq could have walked over Israel at that time, absent support from the US (which Israel, would, of course, have had). We had done a great job of arming Iraq, as had Russia. It is easy to second-guess Iraq's military after we trounced them; but one only need to read transcripts of the debate in Congress and refer to other materials of the period to see that there was REAL CONCERN about how difficult and how bloody the war would be. To suggest now, 10 years later, that we were taking on some 3rd rate power is simply not accurate. While there was no question in my mind or most others' who would win, there WERE serious doubts about how difficult & bloody it might be. This gets to my original point, which has been lost here -- not how powerful was Iraq's military, but how much courage it took for George Bush to take us to war when there is all this talk about how strong the Iraqi military is, how we're going to see thousands of US casualties coming home in boxes, and in general, how unpopular the war was amongst the American people. His actions exemplify true leadership.