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 : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scripts who wrote (22293)	1/16/2005 11:09:23 PM
From: Scripts	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81821

Searle: To finish the thought. I suspect there is a greater chance that the US will bomb Iran and/or Syria than try to occupy either country. Current reality has at least moved to the idea that subduing Iraq is beyond the US ability--adding to the task is not likely. But bombing from a great height is a much safer choice.

To: Scripts who wrote (22293)	1/17/2005 5:25:33 AM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81821

Ed > The idea that an army that proved insufficient to control Iraq was somehow believed sufficient to expand the war on terrorism is understood by those unfortunate to have experienced such bureaucratic delusions. That is what haunts the US at the moment. So are you in fact saying that it is not feasible for the US to conduct their "war against terrorism" because there are not enough potential soldiers available? I accept the US is being beaten in Iraq but since neither the neocons nor their children are involved there why should they give a damn? In my opinion, they will see to it, one way or another, that there are enough soldiers. After all, the military was opposed to the Iraq fiasco from the beginning but nevertheless the fantasies of these civilian "experts" prevailed.