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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (35173)	4/27/2009 10:47:42 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71588

If we had gone in with a larger force we might have been able to block a lot of the Taliban from crossing into Pakistan. They would have been long gone before we could have gotten a large force set up in Afghanistan. We also might have avoided having a situation where Karzai controlled Kabul and warlords controlled everything else. Karzai has a bit more power outside of Kabul than your statement seems to imply, and as for keeping warlords and local governors from having power in their areas, that would have only happened if we essentially made the country in to a colony. As for increasing casualties. 1 - If we had tried to do it all ourselves rather than relying on local allies the American casualties would have been higher than what we are facing now. 2 - 2008 had the most American casualties, but we don't have an uptrend anymore. Per month since last June 46,30,46,37,19,12,27,25,24,28,12 or comparing this months casualties (April's almost over) to previous April figures 2002-2009 10,2,3,19,5,20,14,12 icasualties.org