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: Alighieri who wrote (167303)	4/10/2003 2:18:21 PM
From: d[-_-]b	Respond to of 1580594

Alighieri, re:do you think the killing is done? Let's hope not, there are plenty of Saddam loyalists and Syrian Jihadists that need killing. re:All we've done is move the country from a dictatorship to chaos. No pain no gain. re:Would you be supportive of a Syria or Iran invasion? We've got the hardware in the region - they just need to invite us.

To: Alighieri who wrote (167303)	4/10/2003 2:25:34 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580594

Do you know how many people have died? How many of them civies? How many will yet lose their lives? Iraqi government figures were 1,252 Iraqi civilian dead before the government collapsed; something like 4,000 injuries. US/Coalition fewer than 200 dead. No doubt, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers dead. All in all, an amazingly, almost unbelievably, low casualty count. All we've done is move the country from a dictatorship to chaos Don't you think a temporary period of chaos is worthwhile to end decades of dictatorship with thousands of dead innocents? Obviously, there is going to be a period of chaos. But one need only look at the faces of these people who have been freed to immediately understand that this war was a great thing for Iraq. The fact that a baby was born in Iraq last night and named "George" ought to tell you something. Would you be supportive of a Syria or Iran invasion? Wouldn't the answer to that question, by necessity, depend on the behaviors of Syria and Iran?

To: Alighieri who wrote (167303)	4/10/2003 5:28:16 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580594

Al, <Did you really expect them to fight fair?> That wasn't my point. My point was that despite Saddam resorting to terrorist tactics, the only ones who died by the thousands were his loyal Republican guards and his Fedayeen thugs. (Civilians, too, if you want to count those killed by the Fedayeen themselves though "human shielding" or straight executions.) Other than that, fewer coalition troops died in this war than in Gulf War I. This even after the urban warfare you yourself predicted would lead to "thousands of Americans" dying. Tenchusatsu

To: Alighieri who wrote (167303)	4/10/2003 6:30:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580594

Would you be supportive of a Syria or Iran invasion? I would not, unless they do something new that would give us a good reason to invade and I doubt that they will. In some ways Syria is almost as bad as Iraq was but it hasn't been at war with us, and it hasn't threatened our oil supply or violated a ceasefire with us, or violated a series of important UN resolutions. Iran has repressed its people and supported terrrorism but it hasn't done the same things that I said Syria hasn't done, also the fact that its a bigger country in both size and population would make policing it after an invasion even more difficult. With the relative lack of justification that Syria and Iran have given us for an invasion, world political reaction to invading either would be worse then invading Iraq. But even if most of the world didn't care I would not support invading either. In fact I can think of no new invasions that I would support at this time. Tim