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: michael97123 who wrote (238080)	7/27/2007 2:43:31 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

They wouldnt have been able to be active in saddams iraq and would have concentrated elsewhere. Maybe somewhere else in the world is safer because of the iraq magnet. but iraq did bring them recruits and money and a sense of victory over the US who has flubbed up. Yes, I think we agree. Maybe they would have used their bases in Waziristan to try to take down Musharref (they've tried to kill him several times as it is). The prizes in Pakistan are certainly much richer than in Afghanistan. Iraq did bring them recruits, but it also cost them a lot of recruits, and not just the Saudi splodeydopes either. The casulaty rate of the trained officer core has been very high, and it's getting higher. Those guys are not so easily replaced. It's in the US's interest to make sure that AQ's situation in Iraq deteriorates to such an extent that it will be very tough to claim victories even on Al Jazeera. Petraeus seems to have found a good formula for that. Give him some time.