SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Bilow who wrote (27366)4/26/2002 10:37:09 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Taking Iraq's oil doesn't mean we keep it. Just that we use some of it to pay expenses, then leave it in friendlier hands. Whichever friendlier Iraqi leader we leave it with owes us everything. I'm sure the Brits and Euros would want a piece of that action too.

Hey I'm not saying I'm for or against this, just speculating. We need to do something to counter-balance Arab extremism, minimize or kill Saddam and protect oil flow, then at the sdame time work hard to get off oil in 10-15 years. The Iraq scenario would just be a stop-gap good for a decade or so.



To: Bilow who wrote (27366)4/27/2002 7:26:21 AM
From: John Carragher  Respond to of 281500
 
General Franks was quoted as asking for 250,000 troops needed to go into Iraq.(understand that requires another 250,000 in reserve for relief and another 250,000 in training.)
I believe this is one alternative. Personally lets use max air capability with smart bombs. Only 10% used in previous was with Iraq. Latest fight used 80/90% smart bombs


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News