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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (323941)	1/31/2007 2:32:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575980

If it was a series of Pyrrhic victories we would be taking massive losses. We are. No we aren't. Compared to our population, compared to the size of our army, even compared to the number of new recruits losses are small. Compared to previous wars, again losses are small. If you mean economic losses, well then again losses are small compared to the size of our economy when measured against previous American wars, or previous serious wars waged by other countries. But 21K soldiers are little more than additional 21K confused targets. Nonsense. Defend your position. Here's mine. No one believes that 21K more soldiers will make any difference on Iraq. Even if it was true that no one believed that more soldiers can make a difference (and that isn't true), and even if you assume that more soldiers won't eventually achieve victory, that doesn't mean that the soldiers are just confused targets. They are competent capable people, no more confused than soldiers at war are generally confused.