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 : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sojourner Smith who wrote (14299)	7/22/2006 1:06:17 AM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 32591

LOL! Your opinion no doubt stems from a very biased interpretation of the facts. You are just like Cheney who once told Edwards that "Iraq is a remarkable success story................" If I were you I would take the official figures with a grain of salt! You seem to be remarkably naive and gullible! American casualties were relatively low simply because relatively few troops were involved in the shooting war and because many of them were holed up in the relative safety of their Green Zone. Relatively few troops were mobilised in Iraq because Rumsfeld and Cheney thought that Iraq would be a cinch. Boy! Were they ever greatly mistaken! Had there been more American troops deployed in Iraq, the present situation would probably have been different! Another reason for the low American casualties in Iraq was due to the fact that there were relatively few insurgents shooting at them ----far fewer than the North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War and far fewer than the North Koreans and Chinese who routed the US and Allies forces during the Korean War. It is inane to judge the success of a war on the basis of a relatively small number of casualties sustained. .