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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (202930)	9/18/2004 1:02:43 PM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1575972

CJ, re: We probably can bring Iraq under control, but it is going to take a lot more than we have there now, and it is going to be a long term commitment. Like a generation or more. And it is going to be expensive. If we were going to DO Iraq (which I never believed we should have), we should have taken out SH, kept the Iraqi army in place, and got the hell out. SH was the "problem"... once removed, we have zero justification. Now, cut the losses, cut and run. Leave Iraq to the Iraqi's. As it always should be. John

To: combjelly who wrote (202930)	9/18/2004 1:02:46 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575972

combjelly, Given that they can't even guarantee security in key parts of Bagdad, means our choices are limited. We either have to greatly build up our force levels and bring the rest of Iraq under control again, or we leave. We probably can bring Iraq under control, but it is going to take a lot more than we have there now, and it is going to be a long term commitment. Like a generation or more. And it is going to be expensive. There is a third option, that should be pursued much more aggressively, which is to build upIraqi army / police. For the amount of money we keep 1 US servicemen there, we can have maybe 10 Iraqis. Instead of additional 10,000 to 50,000 US soldiers, we can have 100,000 to 500,000 Iraqis. Joe

To: combjelly who wrote (202930)	9/18/2004 10:18:41 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1575972

I agree, Falluja was key. But so was Najaf. The fact that Sadr is still alive is a joke. We should have arrested him at the very least or eliminated him, if not. Every day that he walks around alive and free is a reminder to the insurgents that the U.S. was defeated by Sadr.

To: combjelly who wrote (202930)	9/19/2004 4:05:22 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575972

"that Bush and the neocons have a plan to keep troops in Iraq for the next decade or longer." They bet all their chips on an Iraq that was so relieved we toppled Saddam that they rolled over and played dead. And that scenario might have happened, although not quite as rosy as planned, but we dropped the ball when we couldn't restore even a moderate amount of security. And get the power back on........electricity is still rationed after over a year. A critical issue in a country where summertime temps over 110º are not unusual. And keep the oil pipelines secure........they get bombed every other week. Another critical issue in a country whose only significant export is oil.