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.

Pastimes : BS Bar & Grill - Open 24 Hours A Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (1573)	10/31/2002 3:25:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 6901

<I don't see the US taking a combat situation into an urban environment in Iraq. I believe we would just besieged the cities and wait for the inevitable revolt by the people against Saddam.. > I agree. This is not like old-time sieges, where the population was bound by fear of death at the hands of the barbarians. Iraqis will know that they only have to make it across the line to be safe. Those opposing will know that they are on the losing side and they must get to the other side without being shot from behind by their commanders. An army with more bullets coming from behind than in front is not a happy army. Those who swap sides could get the new uniform, US$100 salary advance and secure areas captured and act as police and security for local populations. Start selling the oil, use that to fund progress. Take over a few palaces as government headquarters. Give Saddam and hangers-on a way out [to Syria I suppose] if they haven't already left by then, to help get an early surrender and reduce loss of life. Maybe that wouldn't be necessary and unconditional surrender might be worthwhile. Bring back Bill - he could set up shop in a Palace and get UN restructuring started from there. He's love living in a palace with a harem, starting the new UN. He'd hardly need a salary with an offer like that. Mqurice