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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Win Lose or Draw : Be A Steve, Make A Call -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lee who wrote (2231)	2/14/2003 10:06:28 AM
From: LTK007	Respond to of 11447

<If the shock and awe tactics are used then I am against it. If it is an invasion to join forces with the anti-Saddam Iraqis to oust the leader then I am for it.> i agree if we avoided Shock and Awe and actually fought a ground war. Soldiers against soldiers, i would have another attitude. But i think the U.S. will keep to its' policy of recent years. Better thousands of innocents dead than have an American killed. And the fact is this has left us wide open for Osama bin Laden to mock us when he talks of how the nitty gritty core of Al Queda escaped because the U.S. would not fight us. i have read a NYT in depth article on that escape--estimated at 1,500 to 2,000 Al Queda(NYT journalist spent time roaming the no man lands of Pakistan border next to Tora Bora.) If we had sent in ground troops to block the passages of escape, Al Queda's heart would have been destroyed. But, are bombs will do it. And they didn't do it. U.S. is very adept at not noting they had a massive failure at Tora Bora. Max