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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (100674)	6/8/2003 3:56:21 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi KLP; Re: " The left and anti war folks was/were very wrong too....said that going into Iraq would kill thousands of American troops." I was anti war (though I am right wing). In fact, I thought that the idea of a war was so stupid that there was no way that Bush and Blair would really do it. And I repeatedly stated on this thread that we could easily defeat Iraq's military forces, but that we'd be thrown out of the country by the civilian opposition. For example: Bilow, March 24, 2003 ... Back in WW1, it was possible to kill large numbers of soldiers by grinding them up at a stationary war front. But the Iraqis do not have a sufficiently strong military to create a front that would last the years required. Instead, we'll be in Baghdad in days, if not weeks. And faced with a sullen, unbeaten, unbowed population that will shoot the shit out of us, just like Vietnam. ... #reply-18743807 Bilow, March 7, 2003 ... I've noted before that the belief that the residents of Baghdad will come out with flowers for us is a delusion. Also note that I predicted within a few days of 9/11 that the Afghans would greet us with flowers. The difference is simple. ... #reply-18671309 Bilow, March 6, 2003 That was a hell of an article. Here's some selected quotes for those who think that occupying a hostile nation where the civilians follow a nutcase religion and are armed to the teeth is child's play: ... #reply-18667372 Bilow, March 5, 2003 Hi Sig; It's all fantasy. Everyone knows, Saddam included, that his forces are no match for ours. That's why he's so willing to destroy those missiles. The dangerous part of Iraq is their civilians, not their military. The problem weapons, as far as a US occupation goes, are rifles, grenades and pistols. #reply-18657990 Bilow, December 6, 2002 As far as resistance goes, there are two different things to calculate / estimate. The first is the degree of military opposition (will the Iraqi military fight back). The second is the degree of civilian opposition (will the Iraqi population support Iraqi "freedom fighters" against an occupying force). I believe that the Iraqi military would fight back, to a certain extent, but the US has more than enough power to crush them fairly quickly anyway. The problem is in the civilian support for "freedom fighters". As far as whether this will happen or not, I don't think it is even necessary to argue it. Our troops are already getting shot up regularly in Kuwait, where our relations are the best in all of the Arab, if not Moslem world. In the face of these incidents, to expect that our troops will not face an Iraqi intifada is optimistic at best. #reply-18310807 -- Carl P.S. We could get the butcher bill up to "thousands of American troops", but it would require us stick around long after it becomes obvious that it is a lost cause. Right now we're losing about one a day or so. That will triple well before the end of the year. At that rate, we get to the thousand level sometime next year. Right when Bush is running for reelection.