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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (154801)	3/26/2003 7:37:17 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

With shortwave radios and the word-of-mouth networks that keep Iraqis informed of realities their rulers would deny them, there was a hardly a man or woman in Baghdad, or even a child over 7 or 8 for that matter, who did not know that the Americans were almost at the city's gates. nytimes.com

To: GST who wrote (154801)	3/26/2003 8:30:07 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

<< As a result, our ground forces have been left more vulnerable than necessary. >> What is that statement based on? It's an opinion put forth with scant if any fact to back it up. That article is very simplistic, and really disrepects the complexities involved. The more troops and "assets" that are put on the ground, the more potential there is for chaos to develop in the heat of battle, and chances of friendly-fire deaths could mount. The logistics and supply challenges become more complex as well. I'd rather see the troops backed up with overwhelming air power, as seems to be the case now, supplied with all the ammunition and fuel and water and food and everything else rather than see some troops somewhere get cut off from their supply lines because there are too many separete hot spots to keep supplied. That maintenance crew of 11 people now missing for a few days, likey pows, is a prime example of what I am talking about.