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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (94232)	3/24/2003 10:34:13 PM
From: vds4	Respond to of 117113

fair enough. opinions are opinions, and i accept them all. i disagree with the term back stabber, and i believe that we can be a friend of the us without having to agree with every decision that they make. remember that our opinion was not asked for or even considered. as for the future, if iraq is to be rebuilt, then that is a humanitarian concern, and is independent of the actions of war. too many people go without help in the name of pride and embarrassment. it is my hope that those that are in dire need get the help they require... and that politics is left out of that decision. please note a couple of things though. i did think the movement into afghanistan was substantiated, and i do respect that you are free to have your own opinion on the current situation. i am just giving you my take. take care martin

To: Sam who wrote (94232)	3/24/2003 11:08:19 PM
From: Enigma	Respond to of 117113

How do you define getting mean? Bombing civilians? You and Cherry should go into a corner and play with each other. God - quoting Cherry!

To: Sam who wrote (94232)	3/26/2003 5:55:20 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 117113

If you mean that in order to reduce casualties in a house to house war in Baghdad, they will have to resort to bombardment, well that is always done anyway. Siege wars are cruel to the population. In the end the defenders lose. In this case its not take Stalingrad or die. The US can afford to surround the cities and wait. For the Iraquis, it is a noble but futile effort to hold out. The US are not Romans or Tatars. There will be no massacre, (unlike Germany in the second world war), so there is no point in taking it to the bitter end. There is absolutely no point in exposing soldiers to unecessary danger. It is up to the Iraquis to give up, not for the Americans to make it easy on the civilians. War is not for the faint of heart. If they must go to war in the cities, the soldier's inegrity and safety is a priority that may take precedence over the safety and security of civilian bystanders. For one thing, reducing casualties are part of the game in winning. An important part. Put yourself in the place of the soldier who has to do a task in battle, and you will swiftly come to agreement on that one. It is terribly easy to come to a decision in an armchair making US grunts bend over backwards and take high casualties because a foreign army is embedded in the civilian population. That is not our problem. Try playing by those restrictive pusillanimous rules oneself, while dancing a jig to the tattoo of AK47's. You will change your philosopy in a hearbeat, and cheer the sound of artillery with heartfelt adulation. EC<:-}