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.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (147253)9/10/2002 5:27:06 PM
From: Oeconomicus  Respond to of 164685
 
Liz, he's apparently assuming we will end up fighting door-to-door in Baghdad before Saddam is toppled, leading to heavy casualties. An alternate view is that, if it comes to fighting at all, enough Iraqi troops and officers will desert to the opposition that Saddam will be gone long before we got to Baghdad. The idea is simply that a significant portion of the military is loyal to Saddam only as long as it is in their interest to be loyal. If their chances are better on the other side, they'll switch. Or if they aren't sure who will be in charge afterward, simply surrender as they did in '91.



To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (147253)9/10/2002 5:44:20 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164685
 
None of us have any idea -- but I would not assume any similarity to Kuwait. It is a very different situation. We are going there because there is supposedly a huge cache of illegal chemical and biological weapons -- do you remember anything like that used in the last war? And when we do kill enough to turn the tide, we are left with a nation to rebuild -- what got rebuilt in Kuwait, except a corrupt monarchy?


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News