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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (54489)	1/19/2007 4:25:18 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 90947

Also, if evaluating a plan is outside your "skill set", have you formed no opinion on the Bush plan? It seems to me that if 140k troops couldn't achieve the goals in Iraq in three years, 160k troops aren't going to do it either. The Bush plan sounds to me like a recipe for achieving not much. Personally I prefer actions that move more toward putting Iraqis more in charge of their country and Americans less in charge, so I would probably favor removing 20k troops to putting in 20k additional troops. That was the goal (we stand down as they stand up) laid out 2-3 years ago, the fact that it isn't further along than it currently is shows me that the people implementing the tasks to achieve that goal are not doing very well. I could care less about Dem versus Rep arguments, or that the additional 20k troop thing is Bush's plan. Do you really think 20k additional troops will improve the situation?