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: jttmab who wrote (147556)	10/11/2004 9:18:14 AM
From: Bruce L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Re: << Why would Bush doubt the word of Gen Shinshecki [sp?] who thought that several hundred thousand troops would be needed...?>> Reason 1. (Least important) He NOW is one of maybe 10-12 generals and admirals who openly support Kerry versus maybe 150+ who support Bush. There certainly is a legitimate suspicion that if he is partisan now, he was partisan then. (As an aside, jttmab, what did you think on Keith Feral's post? The one that Michael Watkins dismissed, but which I loved?) Reason 2. This general was wrong about the need for 300,000 troops. Wrong certainly about the number of troops to DEFEAT Saddam; wrong also IMHO about the number needed to occupy the country. DO YOU, jttmab, WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE NUMBER OF TROOPS THAT WERE NEEDED FOR THE OCCUPATION? If so, you go first. Bruce