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: neolib who wrote (232646)	5/13/2005 3:43:36 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575707

" My problem is I think even mildly competent planning pre-invasion and we would have had ZERO insurgency." Maybe not zero, but there is a historical precedent for it. All of those who said we needed a much higher force level than what the administration wanted cited security concerns in the aftermath as the reason. They were minimized and, in one case, hounded from office. So here we are in year 3 and you know what? It looks as if they were right. And we can't even say that no one knew this would happen, because we were warned. And warned by people who should know.

To: neolib who wrote (232646)	5/13/2005 5:27:19 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575707

Yes, good post. My problem is I think even mildly competent planning pre-invasion and we would have had ZERO insurgency. Thats what pisses me off. Most Iraqi's were happy to see Saddam go. I even think we could have brought the Sunni's to our side. But a long list of really stupid blunders has landed us & the friendly Iraqi's in the current fix. I agree to a degree. But you can not forget that Iraq is an unnatural configuration much like Yugoslavia was. Saddam like Tito was the glue that kept it together. There would have been problems no matter how well it was planned. However, the Bush administration didn't even cover the basics........so things are ten times worse. ted