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: greenspirit who wrote (121638)	12/16/2003 2:15:40 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Michael D. Cummings; Re: "We crushed them in 45 days instead of 3 months ..." Where do you get this "45 days"? The bloodiest month of the war so far (for us) was November. That makes it 9 months long and counting. Re: "... with most Iraqi's cheering us on ..." Hey, if the Iraqis treated us like the French did in 1944 we wouldn't be taking constant casualties from them. Plenty of Iraqis were happy to see Saddam go, but few were happy to see us arrive. They're still shooting at us. Nor do you have any statistics to back up your "most", just your own wishes. Re: "... and we installed a form of Representative government within 3 months ..." This is a simple lie. Re: "Measuring the death* toll of coalition troops is not a complete measure of our success." So your hope is so far abandoned that you can't even guess how long the war will last. Not even 100 years will be enough to pacify Iraq? Hey, Israel has been working on the Palestinians for 50 years and they're still taking rounds. And the British did get regular uprisings from the Irish for 800 years. I can see why you wouldn't want to name a date, LOL. If you name one too early, you'll be wrong in your lifetime, and if you name one more realistically (try "6 months after never") you'll allow the butcher bill to be totaled up, and no one will want to pay it. So instead, like the frog in the pot, you leave the American military to be slow boiled. Re: "3000 deaths occurred September the 11th 2001 on U.S. soil, yet, I doubt you would suggest we are caught in a Vietnam quagmire in N.Y." The WTC was a "one time" event. Quagmires are ongoing things. Like Iraq or Vietnam. Hey, if we'd lost all our 58,000 troops in Vietnam all on the same day it wouldn't have been a quagmire either, just an incredible disaster. All you're doing here is just changing the subject. Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC attack. Re: "From report after report, from poll after poll, we are seeing vast support from the Iraqi people." This is either a bald faced lie or wishful thinking. Re: "The same Iraqi people who marched in the streets against the terrorist a couple of days ago, and the same Iraqi people who celebrated when Saddam the butcher was caught by our (that's U.S.) troops." The march only had 4,000 to 10,000 people out of a Baghdad population of five million. It was news only because it was the first demonstration in Iraq that showed any support at all for the coalition. Regular demonstrations against us do not get much press in the US. They were reported for a while, but, like the regular casualty reports, they get dull after a while and the news moves on to new things. Here's a recent demonstration considerably larger in Baghdad against the US: ... U.S. troops fired warning shots to disperse the crowd, which McKiernan and other senior officers estimated at 25,000. ... duluthsuperior.com That Saddam was caught by our troops is a good thing for our relations with the Iraqis, but it is only a small good thing, and there are already way too many large bad things that have gone by. The Kuwait liberation was the first bad thing, then the decade of sanctions, then the war over the nonexistent WMDs, then the looting, then the bloody occupation, and now the gasoline shortages in one of the largest oil producers in the world. Re: "Seems to me your focusing on the 3% of the population and neglecting the other 97% percent." The resistance is, unfortunately, at least passively supported by a far larger percentage of the Iraqi population. If it truly were supported by only 3%, the other 97% would have hunted them down and eliminated the problem already. And besides, why are you going on about how 3% is such a small number? That demonstration in Baghdad you're so proud of was less than 0.3% of the Baghdad population. What you're doing is trying to avoid the problem by minimizing it. Here's another riot with 25,000 people in it against the US in Iraq, but this time, I'm bringing you the quote from the pages of the US military itself: ... Soldiers from A Battery, 4-27 arrive on scene on October 15 to secure the area. Baghdad, Iraq – Early in the morning on 4 October 2003, the Platoon Leader of the Quick Reaction Force for 4-27 Field Artillery received word that a large crowd was forming at the Former Iraqi Army Pay Site. ... It quickly escalated into a riot when the approximately 25,000 people began throwing rocks at the coalition soldiers, tearing things apart, and setting fire to a guard tower at the entrance to the pay site. ... 2bct.1ad.army.mil -- Carl P.S. Meanwhile, Iraqis wuv us so much that our troops have to follow these rules in order to survive driving around in it: Convoy Leader Training Handbook* sftt.org

To: greenspirit who wrote (121638)	6/19/2014 8:10:06 PM
From: Bilow	3 Recommendations Recommended By Don Hurst SARMAN Sun Tzu Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi greenspirit; Re: "From report after report, from poll after poll, we are seeing vast support from the Iraqi people. Yes Carl, the same Iraqi people who waved at our troops and hugged us as we liberated their country. The same Iraqi people who marched in the streets against the terrorist a couple of days ago, and the same Iraqi people who celebrated when Saddam the butcher was caught by our (that's U.S.) troops. Seems to me your focusing on the 3% of the population and neglecting the other 97% percent. But that's just my opinion..."; So that was what you thought in 2003. Obviously you're a dumb ass. I wonder what excuse you've got now. -- Carl