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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (197193)	8/14/2006 4:39:44 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi all; Re: [Bilow] "If in late 2002 and early 2003 the Democrats had made more warnings about how Iraq was going to turn into a guerilla war I'd have more respect for their wisdom." I went over to the "Don't Start the War" forum, which was started in January 2003, and searched for "guerilla". If the left wing had known that Iraq would become a vicious guerilla war they would have been posting that prediction all over the thread. Instead, there were no usage of the word until the 432nd post: The never-ending war (Part 1) David Chapman, January 8, 2003 ... The US has declared a war on terror. Trouble is the war on terror is being fought as if it were a conventional war complete with army, navy and air force and all the accompanying overwhelming force of the US. But it is not a conventional war it, is a war that requires police work and diplomacy not overwhelming force. But the US has the weaponry so it must be used, as that is the only way the economic wheels keep on turning. Afghanistan was conquered quickly. There are some expectations that while Iraq may pose a bigger problem it too will fall quickly. We are reminded that the Soviets also took over Afghanistan quickly. But within a year or so it was bogged down in a guerilla war that it ultimately lost. Eric Margolis reported in the Toronto Sun on December 19, 2002 that the USA too is now beginning to become bogged down in a guerilla war. The US-installed puppet and former CIA operative and former employee of Unocal Corp. (UCL-NYSE), Hamid Karzi controls only Kabul and needs US bodyguards. Little of the aid promised to Afghanistan has actually come. There are constant attacks on US forces and losses of equipment and casualties are being underreported. ... Message 18418349 gold-eagle.com Definitely a suggestion that guerilla war could face us in Iraq, after a quick victory. And who is David Chapman? Is he some left wing professor of history? A Democratic candidate for senator from some small state? No, David Chapman is a "gold bug": safehaven.com bullionfund.com -- Carl

To: Bilow who wrote (197193)	8/14/2006 1:54:18 PM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

Rummy still isn't getting it. How the heck did air power and special forces win in Afghanistan? The country's headed for civil war, the prez of the country has never been more than the mayor of central Kabul and even with that, he's had to be heavily guarded by Americans. The one thing air power and special forces did for Afghanistan was to turn wheat crops into opium. That's some alchemy. Winning for Republicans means toppling an easy target, declaring victory and then 'catapulting the propaganda' to say they're a success. IMO Cheney, Perle, Kristol, Netanyahu and assorted other Bushies and friends still want to go into Iran. Perhaps they want a big war because they're sociopaths. Perhaps they have lots of ExxonMobil stock. Perhaps they live in such a bubble that they buy the idea of the 'lone superpower.' Perhaps they have long cherished 'ideas' like Rummy and Wolfowitz did about what they could do, if they just had the power, to Iraq. The Iraq war really is a remnant of 911. 911 shut people up. It shut the media up, it shut citizens up and it shut the opposition party up. It was OBL versus the first ammendment and common sense and OBL won handily. Republicans are still trying to use 'terrorism' to shut people up. They've equated Lamont's win to a win for terrorism. They equate being against Israeli's Lebanon bombing to being for terrorism. Everything they don't like they equate to being terrorism or support for terrorism. The only ones FOR terrorism are the Republicans because they've created more terrorism than the world has ever seen and because they've benefited mightily from it.