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 (221755)	2/28/2007 11:52:28 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"If you send the message that you can't take casualties and you can't stick it out anywhere for more than a year, the implications for your enemies are rather obvious." The message is rather obvious. When you fight war on the cheap a la rummy and dont win in the time frame that was planned, you will automatically end up where we are. If Powell doctrine had been followed and 500,000 troops went in and succesffully pacified the country and we supported these troops with taxes at home and with funds from other nations a la gulf war, it would be a different story. The plan failed, was not adjusted to reality and now we stew in the juices we produced. Someone said to either you or one of the other righties here that you would still be fighting in vietnam if you had your druthers. I am beginning to believe that. Same as the who lost china folks from the 50s. And by the way are you reading the stories about walter reed and the horrific way vets are being treated. 200k in need of help--i guess some are duplicates because they need so much help. And know govt plan in place to do this--just the old rickety Veterans admin blowing off folks who are considering suicide. This admin sucks--they are abject failures.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (221755)	2/28/2007 12:03:01 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>" Admitting error and adjusting policy is one thing, panicking and throwing in the towel is quite another. If you send the message that you can't take casualties and you can't stick it out anywhere for more than a year, the implications for your enemies are rather obvious. "<< We have over 700 bases worldwide, some for over 50 years so to " stick it out anywhere for more than a year " doesn't seem to be a problem for us and we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined and it does not seem to have stopped this current enemy from taking us on. So what are the " obvious implications" of us wisely getting out of Iraq (which we so very unwisely got into) besides that many Americans would stop dieing and getting badly wounded?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (221755)	2/28/2007 3:07:48 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Then why doesn't Israel send troops to Iraq? Why don't you go and fight the Islamists that you're so worried about? Why, Nadine, do you so casually tell others to fight a war FOR YOU?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (221755)	2/28/2007 7:30:57 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

They just can't face who we are fighting and what really drives them. Okay they are driven. They hate us. They want us killed. However, we are fighting people who do not occupy land. They are in hiding. Many live in caves. They have no communications or banks they openly control. They have no post office where you can send them a letter. They have no manufacturing capabilities. They are outlawed in Australia, New Zealand, Europe, North America, Central America, South America, Japan, Russia, India, China, Iceland, Greenland, Antarctica and many other places on earth and in outer space. They can't openly buy a ticket to fly anywhere. Anybody that claims membership in their organization will be locked up. I agree they can do a lot of harm, but lets put it into some perspective.