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: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (74451)	2/16/2003 1:26:31 AM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

re: You would prefer we attack Saudi Arabia at this point? Iraq is a threat, because of Saddam's habit of waging conventional war, and his (potential) for getting and using WMD. Iraq has been a very minor threat as a Terrorist Safe Haven. So, we can fairly easily Deter/Contain Iraq, with minimal conventional-war forces. IMO, Saudi Arabia is, today, a greater threat to the national security of the U.S., than Iraq. Here's what we should be doing, instead of attacking Iraq: 1. make a specific list of actions (not words, actions), the Saudis must take, and a timetable, or we will add them to our list of "nations that support terrorism". 2. this list would include things like ending fund-raising for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Close the Madrassahs, or change them so they don't preach Holy War against the U.S. and Israel. It'll be a long list, because the Saudis are doing so many things to hurt us. 3. If the Saudis don't agree, start a campaign to put pressure on them. Begin with quiet, polite diplomacy. 4. Escalate steadily: un-quiet diplomacy, PR campaigns, then curtailing trade, no weapon's sales, covert and public support for anti-clerical groups, trade embargoes. 5. this campaign has a lot better chance of succeeding, if we first have Energy Independance, and force a compromise peace in the Israeli-Palestinian war: Message 18552556 6. if everything else has been tried, and Saudi Arabia is still the Terrorist Safe Haven it is today, then, yes, I see no choice but to do RegimeChange, with 200,000 ground troops if that's what it takes.

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (74451)	2/16/2003 1:52:27 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Looking at American casualties in recent conflicts: Bosnia (6 months) 18,500 American troops = 3 dead- 1 kitchen fire, 1 truck accident, 1 mine ( and 62 pregnancies) 9000 Brits = 8 dead 6000 French = 3 dead ( 2 by suicide) Afghanistan....... All allies, US, Brits, Aussies, German, even Afghan allies Dead 972 Wounded 682 Desert Storm Fot the Iraquis troops..... <<<At the 300 000 level, with 1-2 per cent casualties and using the standard three-wounded-to-one-dead ratio, Heidenrich estimates the total at 750-1500 dead and 2250-4500 wounded from the air campaign. In the ground war, similar formulas give "a few hundred" to an absolute maximum of 6500 dead, and an absolute maximum of 19 500 wounded. The upper figures would be if all vehicles hit had full crews. eidenrich points out that of the 71 000 Iraqi soldiers taken prisoner, only around 2000 were wounded. In addition, US forces buried only 577 Iraqis. His estimate of civilian deaths is less than 100. >>>> And for the Coalition....................................................: The coalition of 34 nations and nearly 1 million troops, including 697,000 Americans, smashed Saddam's army in four days with minimal casualties. There were 213 coalition troops killed in battle, 148 of them Americans. Another 145 Americans died in non-combat circumstances and 467 Americans were wounded. TOTAL= 651 for 3 wars, AVERAGE= 326 US casualties per War What would the casualties be if Saddam were permitted to get nuclear capabilities before we take action ( like crawl) ? He had the reactors, he had the centrifuges, he has the missiles. Sources: pixelpress.org muslimaccess.com jihadunspun.net casi.org.uk ngwrc.org rockymountainnews.com