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: Sam who wrote (200729)	9/2/2006 1:21:12 AM
From: geode00	Respond to of 281500

This isn't really true. There hasn't been an all-out assault in Iraq or in Afghanistan. There wasn't even one in Lebanon. That's the entire point of having 500,000 troops on the ground instead of 130,000. If I remember correctly, Israel didn't even have its reservists up and running and ready to go while it was bombing. It's this half-assed, mealy-mouthed, partially pregnant Republican nonsense that causes these inane problems. If you're going to go into an illegal war then go to WIN. The Bushies and the Neocons were into some kind of bizarre petri dish experiment with Iraq as the dish. They weren't planning for after-Saddam because they were, as is usual for Bush, expecting other people (in this case the iraqis) to pick up the pottery barn crockery and mend it. Rumsfeld wanted to experiment with high-tech, fast-acting small forces which only works if the people on the ground are cooperating with you and filling the breach. What they failed to do was the well-known US military strategy of overwhelming force. Heck, while Bush sends back 3500 Marines, even Neocon Kristol is calling for 30,000 more troops. So Israel does the same thing, it destroys just enough stuff to anger the Lebanese and then decides it can't go any further. Both the US and Israel should just have stayed home.