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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (715811)	11/30/2005 5:02:08 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"that the United States entered the effort to liberate Iraq without a plan?" Nah, the war against Saddam's Iraq had a typically excellent military plan, characteristic of our world's best military. It's just TOO BAD that the equally carefully considered, planned, and drawn-out plan for the occupation of Iraq (drawn-up in a greater then three year process by our best military planners from the Pentagon, the State Department's best Arab experts, and the C.I.A.) was REJECTED at the 'last minute' (a few months before the attack) and REPLACED with a pie-in-the-sky occupation plan promoted by a bunch of rosy-eyed neo-con optimists (with MUCH LESS experience with the region, the politics, and the peoples), that expected 'rose petals' to be strewn in our path, and the locals to enthusiasticly get behind a plan to fully PRIVATIZE all of Iraq's major business sectors, including their entire oil industry. :( That last little bit of whimsy only lasted a few months before it was rejected by the Iraqis AND Western oil companies. With the experts over-ruled by the fantacists and the self-deluded... is it any wonder difficulties arose with the direction and results of the occupation? But, the plan for the military attack was excellent....

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (715811)	11/30/2005 8:58:25 AM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

That being said, there have been a handful of great generals in every century Rommel paired off against Patten. Hannibal. Nimitz. Julius Caesar. Not to mention that the BIGGEST part of all these great generals plans were to keep their plans secret to all the enemies involved. Pray, tell us what grand tactic you would have used to achieve this stunning success if you had been in control? I wouldn't hold my breath on this one Peter. So far the only thing Chin has come up with is his unshakable plan to keep everything just as it was and to do NOTHING. I'm being generous with that statement. Liberals keep forgetting that we tried to form a coalition but the European powers wanted nothing to do with it. The only one joining us...Spain, didn't have the backbone to finish, would the other European countries be any different? Then what we'd have is an Iraq with no infrastructure left, hardly a gov't at all, little left of their military and a coalition with a great exit strategy that would play right into the hands of the insurgents/terrorists/fundamentalist.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (715811)	11/30/2005 10:24:56 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You are screwed up in your response. The lives of soldiers etc. is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It is an American issue with the US President at the helm. Screw that damn line of partisan reasoning. You know bullshit about Iraq. Show me where the Iraqi army has ever won. They fought Iran for 7 years and could not win. They folded very quickly after the invasion of Kuwait, they just collapsed during Saddam's overthrow. They just abandoned their posts and ran for cover in each of those wars. And you think, Iraq is going to stand up ever. Pipe dreams on your part, which probably comes from what is in the pipe that you are smoking.