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 (277222)	2/28/2006 11:00:45 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578206

Sorry to interrupt the important conversations about port contracts and 70 year old Jewish relationships, but there are US soldiers dying for nothing right now in Iraq, and nobody seems to have a clue as to how to end it. I would announce the timing of the US pullout and tell Iraqis that they had better prepare to govern themselves, or their lives are going to be miserable. I can't explain why it has taken more than 2-3 years to build an Iraqi police force, and the force they have now can't stand on their own. I'm the guy who said it should have taken 3 months.

To: Road Walker who wrote (277222)	3/1/2006 3:24:03 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578206

Let see. How about this one? If the coalition remains in Iraq for another 3 years lets say the forecasts have 3,000 coalition members getting killed, 30,000 wounded and 5,000 Iraqis killed and 50,000 wounded. On the other hand if the coalition departs within 3 months, the forecasts have 0 coalition members getting killed or wounded (for easy argument's sake) and 500,000 Iraqis killed or wounded in the ensuing civil war. If those are the agreed upon forecasts (I just made them up), is it worth it to stay?