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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (377459)	3/24/2003 8:23:38 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

One could use your analysis, but I think it is flawed. Shelling a city will only make more hiding places. I have no reason to believe it would kill that many of the enemy combatants. It would kill hundreds to thousands of civilians. Obviously more escort defense of convoys is needed. It was misjudged. I believe getting north to Bagdad will shorten the war. Also it will allow quickly getting more into Northern Iraq. If blame can be assigned. I put 98% on the Turks.

To: JDN who wrote (377459)	3/24/2003 11:17:03 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769670

Agreed: You have to leave forces strung out in any advance. That's a principle that will never change. Also, there are areas the require abandonment of the goal of leaving infrastructure in tact. People in the rear areas must be subjected to restricted movement as long as the possibility of fighting exists. On the bright side, it looks, this morning, like the Coalition has adjusted to that, and will have more success keeping the rear closed down. The risk of live-time broadcasting: all the worts get shown, and the situations overblown...