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: Road Walker who wrote (235217)	6/1/2005 10:12:49 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

Now you expect we leave and will see a nice smooth transition to three separate countries. No civil war, no fighting over resources, no ethnic or religious strife, no involvement of border countries. John, as far as I could read Elroy never said any of that so where did you get that from? Taro

To: Road Walker who wrote (235217)	6/1/2005 10:19:59 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576159

The timetable should have been 2+ years ago, before shock and awe, before 1600+ US soldiers died, 10,000+ were physically injured, untold numbers psychologically damaged, our national reputation destroyed, 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, $300Billion spent. I agree that planning has been pathetic, but point out that comment is just looking in the rear view mirror. I'm just disagreeing with the comment that the US has "no exit possibility" from the "Iraq quagmire". That's false. The US could leave Iraq in a month with minimal damage to the US. Now you expect we leave and will see a nice smooth transition to three separate countries. No civil war, no fighting over resources, no ethnic or religious strife, no involvement of border countries. I didn't say that. I said my hunch is that if the US left in July 2005, then Iraq would probably split into three (or more) countries. It's not the major issue, however. The main point is the one's that would suffer the most would be the Iraqis, not the departing coalition troops. You get the Pollyanna of the year award. You probably think that because you are reading things into my writing which are not there. I recommend you just take my writing for what it is, not what YOU think is implied between the lines. For example, nowhere in my last few posts do you read me saying something along the lines of Now you expect we leave and will see a nice smooth transition to three separate countries. No civil war, no fighting over resources, no ethnic or religious strife, no involvement of border countries. I write in clear, simple sentences, to help you out.