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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (557740)	6/13/2014 5:00:31 PM
From: SmoothSail	Respond to of 793955

Can Iran get troops in to stop the disaster for the Iraqi Shias? Iran has been operating their military by proxy. They've funded and supported groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and had them do the dirty work. During the 1980-88 war, they used kids and teenagers for their front line activities to draw fire and suss out where the mines were. No training involved. Their present day troops are not battle ready. They have no experience. The "rebels" have been fighting most of their lives. Probably more hand-wringing going on in Tehran than Washington. We saw indications that Washington and Tehran would cooperate and coordinate, probably Valerie's doing. We would supply drone support and they would provide troop support to protect Baghdad, in particular our embassy. Nobody cares if Malaki falls. Immediate problem is the contractors. By way of comparison: The embassy take-over in Tehran was a well-coordinated operation from those on high carried out by "students." It was important for political purposes to control the PR and control the outcome. It had a direct effect on our election. Carter lost, Reagan won. The hostages were released the day after Reagan was sworn in. There isn't even the slightest inkling of anything close to that scenario now. Al Qaeda doesn't care about politics or PR. They have a different set of goals and the accumulation of bodies and severed heads proves it. The photo of Ambassador Stevens being dragged through the streets of Benghazi will be mild by comparison when they're done with any Americans they find.

To: LindyBill who wrote (557740)	6/13/2014 10:29:53 PM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

What will we do if the rush to run explodes and Baghdad falls to the Jihadists? The thing that's hard to understand is how the "rebels" in these situations always seem to be full of dedicated, fierce, willing to die for their cause fighters, and the standing army seems to consist of a bunch of cowards who just want their paycheck and will run away at the first shot. The standing army should have better organization, better communication, better weapons and better everything (you know, supplies!) than the "rebels". How is it that they are unable and/or unwilling to repel the rebels? You posted something earlier that 30,000 people were fleeing an assault made by 800 rebels - that's ridiculous. Outside of the major cities Iraq is one big, flat desert - it's easy to find and attack an advancing force. This rebel advance has been going on for what - 10 days? - and they've already taken two of the three major Iraq cities? That's faster than the US advance on Saddam in Gulf War 2. How is it that the "rebels" in Syria have been fighting for 2 years now, and appear to be losing, while the "rebels" in Iraq can take over large chunks of the country in a week? It just doesn't add up.