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 (85678)	3/24/2003 1:05:00 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 281500

deleted

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (85678)	3/24/2003 5:56:37 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<Like I've told you guys before, it is true that you can have peace at the barrel of a gun. But you have to pull the trigger. And keep pulling it over and over. Until you kill 5% or so of the population.> Maybe that's in a Kingdom, where the people identify with each other, a bit like Japan in WWII. But in a place like Iraq, where the people don't especially identify with Saddam, perhaps Carl's Universal 5% would me much fewer. Perhaps the relevant 5% in that instance would be 5% of the Republican Guard. That would involve 5% of 100,000 = 20,000, which isn't many at all. Maybe even fewer than that in that few of them are fighting for something they believe in - just power. I expect we might hear "Et tu Brutus?" as Brutus plunges his dagger into Saddam in an attempt to remain part of the new power play. But I thought the Republican Guard [the Elite Division or whatever it's called] numbered only 20,000 or so. Which would mean only 1,000 need to be killed [if we accept Carl's theorem of decimation]. Decimation [meaning reducing by 10%, though the meaning is changed to something else these days] seems to be about the right number to complete a rout. I'll go with a decimation as being the right proportion to obtain surrender. Mqurice

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (85678)	4/1/2003 1:43:57 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Carl, I just heard General Franks describe the resistance in Southern Iraq as sporadic resistance in bypassed areas, which require mopping up operations. Let's see, I'll have to think about whether to believe his interpretation or yours...NOT." Well, that was 7 days ago, and ironically it was just before our more honest military officials announced that we'd be taking a break in order to allow the troops to get supplies. Re: "All your predictions are based on the obviously false premise that the vast majority of Iraqis are loyal to the Saddam regime and want to defend it. Your false conclusions follow from the false premise." Never have I said that "the vast majority of Iraqis are loyal to the Saddam regime", and I defy you to find a post where I even suggested that. What I've been saying is that when foreigners come into countries, they are only rarely greeted with flowers and parades, and that Iraq was not one of those rare occasions. -- Carl

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (85678)	7/23/2003 1:25:48 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Carl, I just heard General Franks describe the resistance in Southern Iraq as sporadic resistance in bypassed areas, which require mopping up operations. Let's see, I'll have to think about whether to believe his interpretation or yours...NOT." Well here it is, 4 months later, and more and more US troops are dying due to "sporadic resistance". Guess you should have believed my interpretation instead of the one from the liars working for the President. -- Carl