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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rat dog micro-cap picks... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bucky Katt who wrote (15075)	11/2/2003 3:39:31 PM
From: xcr600	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 48461

The "mission accomplished" message was just as pathetic... as was the excuse recently of what it was supposed to mean. How about calling the insurgents "desperate"? They don't seem desperate to me; appears they are doing what they wanted to do- suck us into a quagmire. btw, I cant get the informationclearinghouse link to work for me..anyone else?

To: Bucky Katt who wrote (15075)	11/2/2003 3:39:48 PM
From: Baton	Respond to of 48461

WJ: It will be interesting to see if Bush recognizes his own Achilles heel and follows this advise. Baton independent.org Cut Losses: Leave Iraq By Ivan Eland* The brazen missile attack on the Rashid hotel in Baghdad and a recent spate of suicide bombings illustrate that anti-American violence is increasing in frequency, sophistication and deadliness. Moreover, a recent poll by an Iraq research center showed fewer than 15% of Iraqis see U.S. forces as liberators, down from a tepid 43% six months ago. That’s an ominous sign that popular discontent over a prolonged occupation could cause anti-U.S. attacks to snowball. The only way to let the air out of the resistance is to quickly turn Iraq back to the Iraqis and withdraw U.S. forces. The violence arises primarily as a reaction to the invasion and occupation by a foreign superpower. To provide for security after U.S. forces leave, the Afghan model could be adopted. Kurdish and Shiite militias could be used to police their own sections of the country. Baghdad and other problem areas could be policed by an international coalition [of the willing approved by the Iraqis]. If the United States were to relinquish control over Iraq’s reconstruction, foreign nations would be more likely to commit their military forces for peacekeeping. Even if such a plan did not work, stability in Iraq never has been vital to U.S. security interests. The threat from Saddam Hussein’s programs to develop weapons of mass destruction was overstated. And economists from across the political spectrum always have been skeptical that Persian Gulf oil needs to be secured militarily. Yet their views have been ignored by vested interests in U.S. national security bureaucracies. In the wake of an ill-advised U.S. invasion, the Bush administration does not have many good options. Few foreign forces will be attracted unless the United States gives up control over the reconstruction; even then violence will continue as long as American forces remain. Throwing even more U.S. troops into the fray would belie the administration's claim that security is improving. As a presidential election approaches, such a move could be political suicide. To preserve U.S. “credibility” nearly 40 years ago, American policymakers pursued an escalated war in Vietnam -- when cutting their losses and getting out sooner would have ultimately salvaged more world esteem. The same is likely to be true in Iraq.