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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (375327)	3/28/2008 5:50:20 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575598

At the moment, it looks like our chimp Nero and his undead VP may be seriously considering striking Iran before they're run out of town. I don't know if you caught it last week (it's probably on the PBS website as a download), but I watched both episodes of the Frontline special "Bush's War" about Iraq. I'd forgotten just how many Iraqi government attempts, military and civilian commanders had been put in charge of the "problem", and just what a complete and total failed effort the entire misbegotten mess that is Iraq has had. This is the most botched war in our entire history, and one we should bail on immediately.

To: Road Walker who wrote (375327)	3/28/2008 6:12:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575598

An increase in force levels, even combined with a more active posture, doesn't amount to "major military operations". The surge involved increasing the number of minor to moderate size operations, but I can't think of any operations involved with the surge that would be called major. Arguably even Fallujah wasn't major, but I'll grant that one without trying the argument. People took "major military operations as over", as if it meant "we won't be doing much with out military in Iraq any more", or "Violence in Iraq is over or almost over". But it doesn't mean anything of the sort. Worst case you could say that Bush knew people would take it that way, and said a technically accurate statement in a dishonest way, but I don't think that's the case here. Not that I would be surprised by a politician making such a statement but I don't see the incentive. While I'm almost certain Bush thought there would be much less ongoing violence than there actually was, I really doubt he thought that there would be total peace in Iraq almost immediately after he made that speech.