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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (6585)	6/17/2003 8:45:34 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8683

Elevated? Saddam had 12 years? How much more did you propose to give him??? Sheesh....you're not even logical....

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (6585)	6/17/2003 11:31:35 PM
From: Scott Bergquist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8683

Why attack Iraq in March? One word: temperature It was already getting to sandstorm season, the typical daily high temperature had gotten into the 80's, and analysts were already bemoaning the "lost window" of good weather. As it was, the biohazard suits issued to the soldiers would have been simply unbearable to wear once the calendar got past April. Obviously, Iraqi leadership, skilled in nerve gas usage in Iran, knew that hot weather was all to their advantage. Stalling a US attack for two months was critical. Say a US attack was stalled until now. It is typically 115 degrees Fahrenheit in Baghdad right now. If you've spent any time in the desert, you know any steel, even in the shade, can be too hot to touch. A few nerve gas attacks, and every one is in those hot suits. The anti-war folk -consistently- ignore the timing issue. It was March 2003, or November 2003. Another six months on top of 8-10 months already idling over there, for 300,000 men? Where is reality with the Saddam supporters?