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 : New FADG. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (936)	5/25/2007 2:41:27 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4152

"You act like if they're not fighting US troops they aren't being "trained". For one thing, I don't see any Al Qai'da forces manning tanks, or forming long columns of Toyota truck "personnel carriers" as they were when they were fighting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. THERE, they were learning the elements of organized mobile warfare, combined arms tactics, and how to fight in large formations. They were training THOUSANDS of people in these tactics and gaining COMBAT EXPERIENCE on a large scale. They even had a small air force, in which their followers would eventually have been trained to operate those jets." Hawk, in all seriousness, do you have any idea of the big picture? If, as you posit, Al Queda had centralized to form conventional forces, including an air force, and learned "how to fight in large formations" the prayers of our military would have been answered. There's not a country in the world that dares to take on the US in a pitched battle of conventional forces. If you think the tiny Al Queda forces would have presented a threat if they'd begun to employ conventional forms of warfare, you need to talk to Uncle or someone who knows what they're talking about. When they stop laughing you can ask another question. "But now, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, with much of those forces destroyed, or decimated, they are back to fighing guerrilla wars and using terrorist tactics against innocent civilians in order to sustain their public "relevance" as a force for Jihad." Do you really want to take credit for driving them underground to employ the only devastating tactic they had in their limited arsenal? "And if Anbar province is any indication, the strategy [of motivating the Muslim world to hate the jihadists more than they hate us] seems to be working." If the Anbar province is any indication we should dismiss all this silly talk about the foreign terror cells taking over Iraq when we leave. And, by the way, the Sunnis in Anbar can use us to kill Al Queda types at the same time they plan to kill us when we're no longer useful. The same way the Shiites can use us against the Sunnis knowing that when they're through draining our blood and treasure they can turn on us and finish the job themselves. That's the reality. Ed

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (936)	5/25/2007 2:51:19 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4152

I'm still waiting for a response to the rest of my question; i.e., You might also address the effect the war has had in sucking away the human and intelligence resources that could have gone into targeting them specifically. And then you might want to explain how a generation of Iraqi children, many of whom have seen their mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters gunned down, blown up and taken away in handcuffs never to be seen again, will respond when they reach an age where they can hold a rifle, strap on a bomb or cross the Mexican or Canadian border. Ed