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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (43648)	9/12/2002 10:37:40 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "You've said all the countries surrounding Iraq oppose the attack, implying we won't get cooperation OR bases." The implication that we won't get bases is in your mind, not in mine, nor in what I wrote. The fact is that we already have numerous bases. Re: "Jordan is opposed, you said. Our soldiers are just there for routine war games." Actually, you're a bit late here. Our soldiers are largely gone from Jordan. The war games are over. Re: "Well, the Arabic News says we have 15,000 soldiers deployed in Jordan and 60,000 in Kuwait, sounds cooperative to me." (1) Do provide links when you type this stuff. (2) Try to use resources that are trustworthy. I mean Jesus Weeps, if you trust the Arabic News, do you want me to quote to you what they say about Israel and the US? (3) Reserves mobilization continued its downward trend this week. I'll update in a little while: defenselink.mil (4) The total numbers of soldiers you're quoting (even if they existed) are simply nowhere near enough to do the job in Iraq. I know that numbers don't mean much to a lot of people, so perhaps we should draw a graph. Let each "" represent 1000 soldiers: Here's how many guys you're talking about: ************ (Jordan, a lie) *********** (Kuwait, probably another lie) *********** *********** *********** Here's how many were on the ground in the last war with Iraq, (a war which did not envision conquering the whole country), 500,000: ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** ********************************************** ************************************************ Now do you see the point? Re: "And looky here, seems Qattar is fessing up that they are not, after all, totally opposed to a US attack on Iraq:" (1) Qatar ain't enough. What Bush needs is Saudi Arabia and / or Jordan. (2) The words of a single man do not define the policy of a country. This applies to Qatar as much as it applies to the US or any other country. If you want to avoid selective perception, you need to look at more than just the best single piece of evidence in your favor. Qatar has denied supporting an attack on Iraq plenty of times. I haven't done a full scale net search for it because, frankly, I don't feel like going around and scraping up the denials for every little piss-ant country that you name. I already did it for Kuwait, here's a similar denial from Qatar: Qatar denies permitting US attacks against Iraq arabicnews.com What you're doing is looking at the latest and best cases, and ignoring the long term trend. The long term trend is that the nations in the Middle East are still saying "no". Re: "Still such a problem reading a calendar, Carl? It's now September. The year ends in what month? You can remember if you try -g-" Yes, I will remind you. -- Carl