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 (76727)	2/23/2003 2:23:03 PM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We don't have anything like a 200,000 strong standing army stationed overseas now. This is a good question for our in-the-know military posters: How many troops do we have stationed permanently in the ME and where exactly are the bases located? While it is something that the US could do if it decided it was essential, the costs would be very very high. Would it be more expensive than the bribes we are paying to the "alliance of the willing"? More expensive than losing the goodwill of much of the world, which we have enjoyed up until this ill-advised adventure? ...the amount of diplomatic bullying we would need to do to get bases would also be immense. We seem to have no deficiencies in this regard. Against the forces of Saddam Hussein, it would look ridiculous, weak. Against a nation that has not harmed us in any way. The precedent, the precedent. If you remember the Civil War (as your handle implies), why do you advise the Americans to all become modern-day McClellans, building a great army to just have it sit? and far from home too - while our enemies take heart from our inertia. Nice touch, with Mac and all, but your argument presupposes the question. "Oh, look, here's all these soldiers! Right here in one place! I guess we'd better invade someone, then."