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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (111482)	2/18/2008 4:04:44 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

There is no such doctrine, and no plan for anything that resembles a real world war. ------------ I suppose you can make that argument on the basis that no country we are currently occupying is putting up much of a fight...just armed underground resistance tactics. However, hundreds of billions for state of the art military bases in Iraq that can support troops indefinitely sure sounds like a protracted war doctrine to me. ======= Gates, US General Back Long Iraq Stay By Ann Scott Tyson The Washington Post Friday 01 June 2007 US presence said to reassure allies. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and a senior U.S. commander said yesterday that they favor a protracted U.S. troop presence in Iraq along the lines of the military stabilization force in South Korea. Gates told reporters in Hawaii that he is thinking of "a mutual agreement" with Iraq in which "some force of Americans . . . is present for a protracted period of time, but in ways that are protective of the sovereignty of the host government." Gates said such a long-term U.S. presence would assure allies in the Middle East that the United States will not withdraw from Iraq as it did from Vietnam, "lock, stock and barrel." Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who oversees daily military operations in Iraq, supported the idea at a news conference in which he also said U.S. military units are trying to reach cease-fire agreements with Iraqi insurgents. Odierno said he sees benefits in maintaining a South Korean-style force in Iraq for years. "I think it's a great idea," he said, adding that the Iraqi and U.S. governments would have to make that decision. "That would be nothing but helping the Iraqi security forces and the government to continue to stabilize itself, and continue to set itself up for success for years to come, if we were able to do that," Odierno told Pentagon reporters in a videoconference from Baghdad. The comments represented the second time this week that administration officials invoked the American experience in South Korea in citing the need for a long-range U.S. military presence in Iraq. Concerns that U.S. forces might stay for a lengthy period have provoked considerable controversy in the region. Yesterday's statements echoed those by White House press secretary Tony Snow on Wednesday. Snow had sparked quick criticism from Democratic lawmakers and liberal activist groups when he said that President Bush envisions a troop posture in Iraq similar to that in South Korea. Iraqi forces, Snow said, would provide the bulk of security, but U.S. troops would be deployed in an "over-the-horizon support role so that if you need the ability to react quickly to major challenges or crises, you can be there." He said that "what you're really dealing with is the internal security of Iraq, rather than trying to provide a reassurance against an external foe." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) responded by accusing Bush of "equating U.S. troop involvement in the endless Iraqi civil war to the post-Korean War security model, telling Americans that he may keep our troops mired in Iraq for as long as half a century." Snow had said, however, that he was not suggesting a 50-year deployment and characterized the potential duration as "unanswerable." ============== ============== As for increased reliance on renewable energy. The idea in abstract is fine even good, but massive government intervention to get us there will likely be harmful --------------- Actually, a significant part of our aging infrastructure was built by....massive government intervention. Perhaps massive government intervention is not the root problem. Perhaps it is corruption in government that is the problem. Europe is 'solarizing' their dreary land mass yet we can't do the same in the more southern USA?