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: geode00 who wrote (208825)	11/19/2006 10:07:21 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

IMO the really interesting part of the ISG is the interviews they've had. I think there are only a few options for our situation in Iraq, due to the Bush admin's incompetence and stupidity. We can get out immediately, and potentially destabilize Iraq even further and possibly the surrounding regions, and perhaps escalate the civil war. We cab get out slowly, and hope that our presence helps to suppress the civil war somewhat, and that it keeps the region from exploding. If we choose the second alternative we have no choice, imo, but to seriously increase the number of troops, since the number in Iraq now is clearly inadequate. I have little faith that the second option is viable, and that we have the will to send more troops, or that sending them will help. It might delay the inevitable, but I'm not sure that matters. At any rate, I am truly interested in the comments to the ISG. They've interviewed some interesting people, but I don't think it provides any cover for Bush and Co, although you may be correct that cover is what was intended. Bush and his admin are probably permanently on history's shit list for being both wrong and brazenly stupid. Nothing they do now provides them any cover, if that is indeed what they are trying for.