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: jlallen who wrote (37530)	8/13/2002 10:59:07 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I understand J... And I think that much of that has been achieved since it likely most of the training camps have moved to Peshawar, and are now the responsibility of Pakistan to deal with (with our support, of course). The key in Afghanistan now is to form a unified military, but we're obviously not going about it properly, IMO. From what I understand, soldiers in Afghanistan's new "army" only receive a pitiful $50/month. Even in comparison to the average Afghan GDP, that seems hardly sufficient to create sufficient prestige for leaving one's "clan" and pledging loyalty to the new government, especially if seen as being transitory. military.com I think we can do both.. In fact, I think we need to strike while we still have sufficient fire and anger in our bellies from memories of 9/11. And I think Saddam's regime would need relatively little pressure for it to collapse in upon itself, especially if we mobilize the nearly 1 million Iraqi refugees as a potential source of manpower. I would much rather we use Iraqis to topple Saddam, but they will need to know that the US is committed to a long-term resolution which will leave their country and lives better off. Hawk