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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (51467)	6/24/2004 7:56:33 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 793778

guerillas hold territory where they can count on the sympathies of the population. The classic case is where the government holds the cities and the guerillas hold the hills. Guerillas may occupy the hills, but they don't try to hold them. When faced with superior force, they disperse and move to other hills. That's one of the basic axioms of guerilla warfare. "Guerillas" who seize and hold territory where they cannot escape when confronted by superior force generally don't live very long. I don't see the Sadr incident as guerilla warfare at all. Declaring any battle that the US wins insignificant and declaring any political compromises the US makes as terribly significant and horribly wounding is setting up a playing field that is always tilted towards US defeat. I don't see putting out brushfires - or forest fires - as winning battles, if the fires just break out again elsewhere and we start running in circles to put them out. Looks like we have another one springing up right now.