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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (77929)	7/9/2006 11:51:11 PM
From: RMF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Chinu...I think a majority of the country doesn't want us to just pull out and let Iraq go to total chaos. It would be difficult for the Dems or the Repubs to come up with a plan that would "ensure and accelerate" success in Iraq because there ISN'T one possible at this point. Murtha's idea of pulling the troops out and stationing a few thousand somewhere nearby wouldn't work. Violence would just increase and our guys would be spending most of their time going back and forth at the mercy of ground-fire. Once we pull out there is NO going back, so keeping our troops there for a while longer in the hopes that things get better would seem to me the only reasonable BAD option among the many other BAD options. Of course, what we should do if we want the best result possible is to send in another 300k troops to lock down the entire country and disarm all the militias, but that AIN'T gonna happen...so I agree with Clinton that we should stay the course as is for a while longer. The SCREWUPS in Iraq came during the original planning and then the initial occupation. It's too late to correct those mistakes and it may be impossible to EVER get things righted there, but the stakes are SO high now for the entire Middle East, that I think we should continue to play the hand for a while longer.