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 (378388)	3/25/2003 7:56:48 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

No shit! I just hate it when I see us playing by all the rules and the Iraqis breaking all the rules. I wish we'd unleash hell's fire on them and finish the job. But everyone is worried about the civilians who will be the key to restoring the world's faith in the U.S.

To: JDN who wrote (378388)	3/25/2003 11:49:36 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I agree with the view that casualties have been extremely light for the gains we've made. However, the storm is bad because we lose some of our main advantages; visibility, overwhelming firepower, and air power ala Vietnam. Whether the Iraqis are able to take advantage is a big question, but if they get groups of suicidal murderers in amongst our troops, the could cause considerable damage. I'm hearing more and more about this 'light package' that Rumsfeld has sent in. Not only is the 4th ID late in arriving (because of failed diplomacy), but the 1st Armored and 1st Cav are sitting it out. It would seem that, for this strategy, we need those two units, if for nothing more than to protect the supply lines. Of course, all this is amateur quarterbacking, but it adds to the concern I have for our troops.