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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (59505)	1/26/2005 2:19:55 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay is just trying to stir up trouble with his Dien Bien Phu analogy regarding our troops in remote desert bases. His concerns about water are especially silly, since as you rightly point out they will locate the bases at water sources. The real issue to be concerned about in Iraq is: what happens in the populated areas after we pull out? Jay is getting rather lame with his taunts because he's so distracted by the bull's horns jamming into his backside, ever since he shorted the homebuilders right before they zoomed up!

To: energyplay who wrote (59505)	1/26/2005 7:00:38 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

Hello EP, <<Convoys can come from Kuwait or Jordan>> I suspect the 'People power' will spread, as the US army logistic chain lengthens, because for every action there is a reaction, invariably. This we know from the stories of the Crusades. The point for the US army is not to demonstrate that it can base itself in the deep sandy plain in perpetuity, but to serve a purpose, and as of now, the only purpose served is one created out of previous actions (invasion leads to occupation leads to fighting insurgency leads to ...), as opposed to a genuine objective. If there is a genuine objective (i.e. bring stability, keep oil flowing, seize WMD, give rise to democracy, etc), the US army has failed, and cannot succeed, because the issues are fundamentally not military in nature. <<national liberation movements don't work well in a desert against an adversary with huge advantages in technology and resources>> ... perhaps the French society has some words of wisdom to say on this subject, and same with the British historians, and let us not forget Somalia that is closer to the point. I figure that when a war ceases to be supported by the population of the country waging it, debacle follows, each and every time. 53% margin is not a good starting point for thinking about permanently basing troops in the sands umpteen thousands of miles away, spending money that isn't there, for a purpose not quite defined. Now, a US failure by way of quagmire in Iraq or by route of debacle in Iran will have much more consequence than a US failure in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; of that we can be fairly certain. This possibility is not priced into the market anywhere. Chugs, Jay