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: Bilow who wrote (48696)	10/1/2002 9:47:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

It's standard military knowledge that one attacks with all ones forces all at once, if those forces are available. The idea is to prevent the enemy from having time to repair old damage, or arrange alternatives. Ah, thanks for the information. I guess that means that all the low-grad wars of the last hundred years, for instance, the War of Attrition between Israel and Egypt (1967-1970), never happened. Learn something every day. If the US truly does decide to attack Iraq, it's not going to be pissing away the advantage of surprise by piddly little attacks of this nature. Ya know, Carl, don't tell anyone, but I think the element of surprise is already long gone. Iraq knows we intend to attack, President Bush having mentioned the possibility once or twice. Don't you ever feel silly, tossing out these military bromides with a such a pontifical air? P.S. Now it's October, but still no war with Iraq. Still having trouble reading a calendar? What month does the year end in?

To: Bilow who wrote (48696)	10/1/2002 9:52:50 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

it's not going to be pissing away the advantage of surprise You are so inconsistent. You've been saying for months that, if we were going to war, we'd have a huge buildup like we did for Desert Shield. That took months, and there was no element of surprise. Which reminds me, half the time you argue that war with Iraq will be horrible because they are so formidable and will fight so hard, and half the time you argue that they are no threat, what are we worried about? "Ridiculous" to worry about Iraq as a military threat, I believe was your expression. Please realize I am not paraphrasing your arguments precisely, I am rephrasing them in a facetious manner, because I find it amusing to do so. But I do find your arguments very internally inconsistent. Take, for example, your arguments about "what would we do if Saddam put a nuke in a US city?" I wasn't in the mood to discuss it, but the answer is that we won't negotiate. Not as long as Dubya is president. We can't. I was reminded of this today when I read about the little 11-year-old son of a German banker who was found murdered after his parents paid $1 million ransom to his kidnappers. If you capitulate, it won't do you any good, and it will never end.