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: jcky who wrote (34106)	7/10/2002 6:19:22 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Doesn't a major invasion and commitment of troops in Iraq leave us soft in the underbelly for an al Qaida counterstrike? With what? Horses, sabers, RPGs? It's the AQ terrorism that we should be concerned about, not its conventional military menace. The US can (and has) made mincemeat out of AQ in any conventional military sense. No need to worry about that point, IMO. Is the invasion of Iraq fiscally responsible for Americans? Depends on how costly it would be to suffer the results of a few small nuclear explosions and a few instances of bioterrorism. The more one contemplates about the invasion of Iraq, the less feasible it becomes. You really think so? Why?

To: jcky who wrote (34106)	7/10/2002 6:21:11 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

the anticipated invasion of Iraq. They are writing the Musical about it now. "Springtime for Bush." leave us soft in the underbelly for an al Qaida counterstrike? All you need to stop al Qaeda is about twenty FBI types and the Intelligence to know which doors they should knock on. All the Military in the world would not have stopped 9/11. I loved Bush's comment on Arafat at his latest press conference. ...The president was dilating on the need for a Palestinian state to emerge. So that the Palestinian people would finally have the sort of government "which will give us all confidence in its ability to fight off terrorist activities; in its ability to receive international aid [and here there was a pointed and dramatic pause] without stealing the money." Stealing the money! The Oslo era truly is over. I think the preferred term at the State Department is "transparency." But somehow I don't think the president has been spending quality time with the diplomatic set.

To: jcky who wrote (34106)	7/10/2002 6:38:17 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

On another subject, the anticipated invasion of Iraq. What are you thoughts? I've been saying since February that as I read the tea leaves from this administration, we were going to go into Iraq. By now, it would be a disasterous blow for US prestige and power if after all this talk, we failed to go into Iraq. The latest rumors (NY Times articles, WaPo, David Warren columns, etc) seem to confirm it's not a matter of if, but when and how. If the military analysts of Ha'aretz can be believed, the IDF general staff certainly believes that we will attack Iraq this winter or next spring. There has been a great deal of material quietly shipped to the Mideast, to Israel, Jordan and Turkey. It's hard to get a handle on how much, though that email on the shortage of shipping containers certainly caught my eye. If it's this winter, we will probably see the announcements, debates, and troop shipments after the November election, just as Bush 41 waited until after the November 1990 elections to move 500,000 troops into the Gulf.