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: Bilow who wrote (101039)	6/10/2003 10:40:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Carl, June 10, 2003 (1) An attack on Iraq would involve more than 100,000 troops. (2) The Iraqi soldiers would fight back, but they would be quickly defeated. (3) The real problem would be the occupation of the country after the war. Carl, October 4, 2002: P.S. Did you bother to read the US Army College account of the Israeli siege of Beirut? See #reply-18070975 for a taste of what Baghdad would be like. Except that the Baathists would be fighting on their own territory and therefore more likely to receive support from the civilians, have had more time to prepare positions, started with much more weapons, and far outnumber the Palestinians. Despite the differences, all of which suggest that the siege of Beirut is easy compared to the siege of Baghdad, the Israelis attacked with 70,000 men. This is why any realistic US attack would require at least 250,000 -- and a draft to get to a million if it turns into an occupation vs guerilla conflict.

To: Bilow who wrote (101039)	6/11/2003 11:23:17 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It was published the previous year, not seven years ago. It is true that it mainly dealt with how Iraq deceived inspectors in the early '90s, but it is also described as containing up to date information on Saddam's security apparatus. And the British government apologized for using it without credit, not for using it at all. I think that Nadine dealt adequately with the discrepancies between your current account of your views, and the views that were expressed prior to the war........