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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (219299)	2/18/2007 7:50:40 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 281500

They talked about the costs of inaction, about the costs of letting sanctions fall apart and letting Saddam get nukes. Nobody can budget a war beforehand, that's impossible That is not true. The war was a cakewalk. That was the estimate by almost everybody. We had overwhelming force and the Hussein administration was toppled. The problem was that they were not honest about the cost of inaction. If it was as crucial as they said it was, we should have allocated a lot more money for the occupation. We should have had enough troops to guard the ammo dumps. We should have enough troops for the occupation. There is a formula to determine the number of troops needed for the occupation. For a country the size of Iraq, we need several hundred thousand troops. The Bush administration wanted to fight the war on the cheap. They didn't want people to sacrifice. They continued tax cuts to the wealthy. You can't have it both ways. You can't think that the war was crucial, but you don't want to pay for it. Anyhow, what is in it for you to support the poor execution of this war? Why do you have to defend their poor execution of the war? they didn't make the case for the war and they didn't properly execute.