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: Sam who wrote (113503)	8/31/2003 12:57:17 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

I think this commentary is nonsense. If half the army was still loyal to Saddam, the Ba'athists might have put up a respectable fight against the Americans instead of melting like butter, at least enough to save their honor, and wouldn't have to be relying on imported jihadists now. The weakness of the current Ba'athist positions is that they don't have a classic guerilla army, one that is made from the people and can melt back into the people, with the possible exception of places like Tikrit and Falujah, Saddam's old strongholds. They are relying on imports and Al Qaida instead. Al Qaida, having failed to make much headway attacking Americans, is now attacking the soft targets that Americans are not allowed to guard - the UN and mosques. So the Iraqis are complaining that the US is not providing security. I have heard much more of that than any cry of 'infidel go home'.