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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (165905)	3/27/2003 12:33:43 PM
From: jjayxxxx	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580849

Starting 2 weeks early may have been less than ideal in terms of having maximum force on the initial invasion. But it appears to have been worth it (so far) as it caught them off guard in a lot of ways. I think they were waiting for another gulf war: a month of bomb strikes followed by 100 hour ground war. We stopped a LOT of destruction - oils wells, oil platform, etc. - that most definitely would have happened in much larger numbers had we waited. Only time will tell. Heads will roll if 3ID gets stranded or cut off or whatever. I highly doubt anything like that will happen though. DISCLAIMER: My only military experience is from Clancy books. <g> JJ

To: Joe NYC who wrote (165905)	3/27/2003 12:39:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1580849

I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that ideally, we should have started the war 2 weeks later. That could shorten the duration of the war, bu we were at the dead end with diplomacy, and had to move when we did. That's not true. France wanted a thirty day extension for the inspectors but we refused. Near the end, France made it clear that that figure was negotiable but we blew it off. Bush wants this war and he's got it now. Any intelligent military operative would have waited until the 4th was thru the Suez Canal but like everything else during the past year, the time frame is not based on any practicalities [with the sole exception of weather] and so screwups continue to occur. Unfortunately, the screwups now could cost people their lives. So anyway, the duration might have been shorter, but starting 2 weeks early moved up the end of the war. Probably by less than 2 weeks but somewhat. How do you figure? I don't know that there is any true predictability when it comes to the end of a war. On a slightly different subject, I have to say that it was a great idea to go with the "embeded" journalists. While they may not have the overview (which the military doesn't want to give away anyway) they bring the day to day life of the soldiers much closer. Also, it shows the world that we have nothing to hide. Yes, I would agree........they make the war more real. But there is one "embeded" journalist on MS/C/NBC that gets on my nerves. He is a blond guy, last name starts with "B" I think. I don't watch MSNBC so I don't know this guy. Forest Sawyers on CNBC is getting on my nerves. While not "embedded", he seems to ask the stupidest questions.........although now, I can't remember what they are. Plus he shows such surprise at what I consider ridiculous things......like that Saddam has hidden weapons in schools. Maybe this makes me evil but I would do the same if a major power was about to attack my country, and I knew they wouldn't bomb schools. Where I come from, that's called being clever. ted