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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marek_wojna who wrote (70585)	10/11/2008 6:22:33 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

You remember wrongly: <two lost wars. The wars you were big supporter as I can remember. > Age does that to us. I was against the Vietnam war and against the invasion of Iraq too. Where you probably got a bit confused was that I didn't object if the USA wanted to take over from Saddam, Uday, Qusay and co. But it wasn't the best idea in my opinion. You can read lots of posts by me about the New United Nations which was my favoured approach to such matters. Indifference is not the same as in favour. I would not have put my money or life on the line for the Iraq invasion. It seemed more like alpha male chimps puffing out their chests at each other and neither backing down. My opinion was that the Iraq conquest would be over in 110 minutes [one Globalstar orbit]. There would be subsequent insurrection and about 2,000 or 3,000 USA casualties [I forget which I guessed]. I also said that there were no or insignificant WMDs. It's all there available in the record. You can read posts of mine laughing at the calls of "Gas! Gas! Gas!" It was obvious that Iraqi soldiers would surrender as soon as they decently could and avoid being shot in the back by their bosses. They were in the military for the cash and perks, not for loyalty to Saddam. The Afghanistan conquest is something else and I was in favour of that. But I wouldn't have done it in the way it was done. Rather than divert to Iraq, I'd have piled into Afghanistan and got after Osama and his sidekicks, making life tough for Al Qaeda in their HQ. Note that Osama has STILL not been dealt with 6 years after his highly successful attack. Mqurice