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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (17516)	3/8/2003 2:09:53 AM
From: PartyTime	Respond to of 25898

Seems to me that the Bush Administration's risk analysis is negligent. Think. On the home front, even many of our domestic emergency response personnel have been sent to the Gulf or other duties, due to their also being in the Reserves. In the Iraqi war theater, 600,000 were used in the previous Gulf War campaign; this time nearly 300,000. Heck, I'd bet even the Kurds would turn on the Americans if they thought they could get an independent Kurd nation were the Americans defeated. How many troops does Iran have, nearly a milliion? Iraq's got 350,000-500,000. That's a lot of bodies to kill while sitting in the desert. Now, if you were the leader of either Iran or Syria and you knew, based on the way things are going, you're gonna face an American military force, would you prefer a larger one (which will happen once America gets its military foothold in Iraq), or a smaller one that's been through hell just getting organized? This adminstration didn't figure the risks right when it came to popular opinion, the support they thought they'd get from allies. What makes you think they've got it figured right with the planning? Remember, this planning has been taken away from the generals (see prevous news reports) and is pretty much a fundamentalist White House top down kind of command and control.