| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2006 12:21:28 PM |
| Object: |
Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm
"Veteran US journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration. He
makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on
Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time last
year. Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but
Iraq has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately. Not
that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since reports on
violence in Afghanistan are growing.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers may well
have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't hear the
administration admitting to it.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Hotel Charlie One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 01:08:21 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1159618888.535723.260020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm "Veteran US
journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration. He
makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on
Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time
last year.
Not really. The press in "embedded" or if you prefer "in bed with" the
military. DoD has full control over where those reporters go, so they
can do a bit of pre-censoring. Sure, an ambitious reporter could leave
the Green Zone and go out on his own, but he had better look
Middle-Eastern to try that trick. Blue eyes equals target.
Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but Iraq
has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately.
And so the runup for Iran with the same bold claims made by US
officials and denied by numerous UN agencies. Bet on the US going it
alone it Iran just like the quick cakewalk in Iraq when the UN asks
for restraint.
Not that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since
reports on violence in Afghanistan are growing.
If he were Clinton he would bomb and aspirin factory, But Fearless
Leader is no wuss and bedsides there are still countries in the Middle
East not at war.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers may
well have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't hear
the administration admitting to it.
There is no choice on that. About 100 years ago the idea of
mathematically solving troop strengths culminated in the "Lancaster
Equations". These were a series of differential equations which gave
insight tnto troop strengths needed to take out an enemy in a given
environment. The worst case was urban warfare where it is estimated
that a seven to one numerical advantage is needded to conquer that
enemy.
Do the math, with an extimated 40,000 insurgents, we are only half way
manned. The results are as expected. The enemy is able to plink us off
one or two at time. We will not win with the current manning levels.
The draft is politically unfeasable. So we either pull out or get
slowly plinked off. I would also point out the the latter choice does
little but consume war materails to no real benefits. I would call
the deliberate consumption of materials where the enemy cannot be
vanquished to be "aiding and abetting" that enemy. And in wartime,
that's treason.
Budikka
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret the
day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was willing
to protect with my life are being lost. The America of our founders is
dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 06:24:49 PM |
|
|
"Hotel Charlie One" <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E3E6F846E0cipciphc1@199.45.49.11...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1159618888.535723.260020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm "Veteran US
journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration. He
makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on
Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time
last year.
Not really. The press in "embedded" or if you prefer "in bed with" the
military. DoD has full control over where those reporters go, so they
can do a bit of pre-censoring. Sure, an ambitious reporter could leave
the Green Zone and go out on his own, but he had better look
Middle-Eastern to try that trick. Blue eyes equals target.
Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but Iraq
has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately.
And so the runup for Iran with the same bold claims made by US
officials and denied by numerous UN agencies. Bet on the US going it
alone it Iran just like the quick cakewalk in Iraq when the UN asks
for restraint.
Not that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since
reports on violence in Afghanistan are growing.
If he were Clinton he would bomb and aspirin factory, But Fearless
Leader is no wuss and bedsides there are still countries in the Middle
East not at war.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers may
well have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't hear
the administration admitting to it.
There is no choice on that. About 100 years ago the idea of
mathematically solving troop strengths culminated in the "Lancaster
Equations". These were a series of differential equations which gave
insight tnto troop strengths needed to take out an enemy in a given
environment. The worst case was urban warfare where it is estimated
that a seven to one numerical advantage is needded to conquer that
enemy.
Purely as a matter of interest, I am wondering how any equations derived 100
years ago account for military conditions in 2006, when both urban
environments themselves and weaponry available have changed so drastically.
I mean, technically, an entire urban area could be vaporized with a single
fusion bomb if that were an acceptable tactic (please no stupid comments
from the amoral Republican peanut gallery), so what's the deal?
Do the math, with an extimated 40,000 insurgents, we are only half way
manned. The results are as expected. The enemy is able to plink us off
one or two at time. We will not win with the current manning levels.
The draft is politically unfeasable. So we either pull out or get
slowly plinked off. I would also point out the the latter choice does
little but consume war materails to no real benefits. I would call
the deliberate consumption of materials where the enemy cannot be
vanquished to be "aiding and abetting" that enemy. And in wartime,
that's treason.
That makes sense.
I imagine that only an opposite-party administration could get away with
really ratcheting up troop numbers to the extent that they are now seemingly
required, as they will be able to blame the previous group for getting us
into the mess. This is a non-partisan comment; I assume the same would hold
if a Democrat ever started a war as well. A same-party administration would
have to admit the original strategy was flawed, and neither political party
in the US has the kind of fortitude to do that to itself. I don't expect it
will happen, but if someone honestly believed that we should commit the
necessary manpower to stabilize Iraq, they would virtually have to vote
Democrat in the future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 06:00:34 PM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:Ieudnau4irNIK4PYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
"Hotel Charlie One" <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E3E6F846E0cipciphc1@199.45.49.11...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1159618888.535723.260020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm "Veteran US
journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration. He
makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on
Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time
last year.
Not really. The press in "embedded" or if you prefer "in bed with"
the military. DoD has full control over where those reporters go, so
they can do a bit of pre-censoring. Sure, an ambitious reporter could
leave the Green Zone and go out on his own, but he had better look
Middle-Eastern to try that trick. Blue eyes equals target.
Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but Iraq
has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately.
And so the runup for Iran with the same bold claims made by US
officials and denied by numerous UN agencies. Bet on the US going it
alone it Iran just like the quick cakewalk in Iraq when the UN asks
for restraint.
Not that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since
reports on violence in Afghanistan are growing.
If he were Clinton he would bomb and aspirin factory, But Fearless
Leader is no wuss and bedsides there are still countries in the
Middle East not at war.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers may
well have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't hear
the administration admitting to it.
There is no choice on that. About 100 years ago the idea of
mathematically solving troop strengths culminated in the "Lancaster
Equations". These were a series of differential equations which gave
insight tnto troop strengths needed to take out an enemy in a given
environment. The worst case was urban warfare where it is estimated
that a seven to one numerical advantage is needded to conquer that
enemy.
Purely as a matter of interest, I am wondering how any equations
derived 100 years ago account for military conditions in 2006, when
both urban environments themselves and weaponry available have changed
so drastically. I mean, technically, an entire urban area could be
vaporized with a single fusion bomb if that were an acceptable tactic
(please no stupid comments from the amoral Republican peanut gallery),
so what's the deal?
Weapons and tactics have advanced a great deal in a hundred years. The
existence of long-duration surveillance drones and night-vision
equipment, for instance, are factors that cannot be offset by a low-tech
adversary with unconventional forces.
Do the math, with an extimated 40,000 insurgents, we are only half
way manned. The results are as expected. The enemy is able to plink
us off one or two at time. We will not win with the current manning
levels. The draft is politically unfeasable. So we either pull out or
get slowly plinked off. I would also point out the the latter choice
does little but consume war materails to no real benefits. I would
call the deliberate consumption of materials where the enemy cannot
be vanquished to be "aiding and abetting" that enemy. And in wartime,
that's treason.
That makes sense.
I imagine that only an opposite-party administration could get away
with really ratcheting up troop numbers to the extent that they are
now seemingly required, as they will be able to blame the previous
group for getting us into the mess. This is a non-partisan comment; I
assume the same would hold if a Democrat ever started a war as well. A
same-party administration would have to admit the original strategy
was flawed, and neither political party in the US has the kind of
fortitude to do that to itself. I don't expect it will happen, but if
someone honestly believed that we should commit the necessary manpower
to stabilize Iraq, they would virtually have to vote Democrat in the
future.
Might I suggest that you're fighting the War of 2003, not the present
conflict as it exists in Iraq? For one thing, you aren't accounting for
the existence of the Iraqi military. Rather than drafting American
troops to ratchet up the force relations, why don't you understand
realize that the Iraqi army is taking up that responsibility?
For another, you aren't fully aware of the quality of reported
information. You say that the press is "embedded" but do you really know
how many reporters are actually embedded with military units, as opposed
to operating exclusively out of the Green Zone? You've seen how the
press was manipulated by Hezbollah in the recent Israeli conflict. The
MSM regularly uses the same sort of compromised sources in Iraq.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Some days the impatience with Iraq just seems artificial — as though
the real argument is about something else entirely." - Dinocrat
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hotel Charlie One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 07:43:50 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns984E9817CEBD1fstone69@66.150.105.47:
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:Ieudnau4irNIK4PYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
"Hotel Charlie One" <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E3E6F846E0cipciphc1@199.45.49.11...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1159618888.535723.260020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm "Veteran US
journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration.
He makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released
on Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time
last year.
Not really. The press in "embedded" or if you prefer "in bed with"
the military. DoD has full control over where those reporters go,
so they can do a bit of pre-censoring. Sure, an ambitious reporter
could leave the Green Zone and go out on his own, but he had
better look Middle-Eastern to try that trick. Blue eyes equals
target.
Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but
Iraq has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately.
And so the runup for Iran with the same bold claims made by US
officials and denied by numerous UN agencies. Bet on the US going
it alone it Iran just like the quick cakewalk in Iraq when the UN
asks for restraint.
Not that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since
reports on violence in Afghanistan are growing.
If he were Clinton he would bomb and aspirin factory, But Fearless
Leader is no wuss and bedsides there are still countries in the
Middle East not at war.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers
may well have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't
hear the administration admitting to it.
There is no choice on that. About 100 years ago the idea of
mathematically solving troop strengths culminated in the
"Lancaster Equations". These were a series of differential
equations which gave insight tnto troop strengths needed to take
out an enemy in a given environment. The worst case was urban
warfare where it is estimated that a seven to one numerical
advantage is needded to conquer that enemy.
Purely as a matter of interest, I am wondering how any equations
derived 100 years ago account for military conditions in 2006, when
both urban environments themselves and weaponry available have
changed so drastically. I mean, technically, an entire urban area
could be vaporized with a single fusion bomb if that were an
acceptable tactic (please no stupid comments from the amoral
Republican peanut gallery), so what's the deal?
Weapons and tactics have advanced a great deal in a hundred years.
The existence of long-duration surveillance drones and night-vision
equipment, for instance, are factors that cannot be offset by a
low-tech adversary with unconventional forces.
The Israelis had the drones, had the night vision goggles, had the
Apache helicopters, had the advanced C3I technology, and Hezbollah
still exists. And the fact that this low-tech adversary was able to
stand up to a high powered second generation warfare system has done
more for Middle East unrest that anything the Arabs could do at the
mosque or meeting hall.
Do the math, with an extimated 40,000 insurgents, we are only half
way manned. The results are as expected. The enemy is able to
plink us off one or two at time. We will not win with the current
manning levels. The draft is politically unfeasable. So we either
pull out or get slowly plinked off. I would also point out the the
latter choice does little but consume war materails to no real
benefits. I would call the deliberate consumption of materials
where the enemy cannot be vanquished to be "aiding and abetting"
that enemy. And in wartime, that's treason.
That makes sense.
I imagine that only an opposite-party administration could get away
with really ratcheting up troop numbers to the extent that they are
now seemingly required, as they will be able to blame the previous
group for getting us into the mess. This is a non-partisan comment;
I assume the same would hold if a Democrat ever started a war as
well. A same-party administration would have to admit the original
strategy was flawed, and neither political party in the US has the
kind of fortitude to do that to itself. I don't expect it will
happen, but if someone honestly believed that we should commit the
necessary manpower to stabilize Iraq, they would virtually have to
vote Democrat in the future.
Might I suggest that you're fighting the War of 2003, not the
present conflict as it exists in Iraq? For one thing, you aren't
accounting for the existence of the Iraqi military. Rather than
drafting American troops to ratchet up the force relations, why
don't you understand realize that the Iraqi army is taking up that
responsibility?
Because I read articles like these:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002929528
_iraqarmy14.html
For another, you aren't fully aware of the quality of reported
information. You say that the press is "embedded" but do you really
know how many reporters are actually embedded with military units,
as opposed to operating exclusively out of the Green Zone? You've
seen how the press was manipulated by Hezbollah in the recent
Israeli conflict. The MSM regularly uses the same sort of
compromised sources in Iraq.
Naturally, you said it yourself, the truth is the first casualty in
warfare. But when I hear nothing but rose colored goodness from the
administration, I have to ask can this all possibly be true? Especially
considering the truth of that old military axiom "when the battle is
going to good to be true, you are walking into an ambush".
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are being lost. The America of
our founders is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 07:23:24 PM |
|
|
Hotel Charlie One <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns984E817CDBA61cipciphc1@199.45.49.11:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:Xns984E9817CEBD1fstone69@66.150.105.47:
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:Ieudnau4irNIK4PYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
"Hotel Charlie One" <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E3E6F846E0cipciphc1@199.45.49.11...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1159618888.535723.260020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm "Veteran US
journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration.
He makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released
on Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time
last year.
Not really. The press in "embedded" or if you prefer "in bed with"
the military. DoD has full control over where those reporters go,
so they can do a bit of pre-censoring. Sure, an ambitious reporter
could leave the Green Zone and go out on his own, but he had
better look Middle-Eastern to try that trick. Blue eyes equals
target.
Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but
Iraq has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately.
And so the runup for Iran with the same bold claims made by US
officials and denied by numerous UN agencies. Bet on the US going
it alone it Iran just like the quick cakewalk in Iraq when the UN
asks for restraint.
Not that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since
reports on violence in Afghanistan are growing.
If he were Clinton he would bomb and aspirin factory, But Fearless
Leader is no wuss and bedsides there are still countries in the
Middle East not at war.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers
may well have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't
hear the administration admitting to it.
There is no choice on that. About 100 years ago the idea of
mathematically solving troop strengths culminated in the
"Lancaster Equations". These were a series of differential
equations which gave insight tnto troop strengths needed to take
out an enemy in a given environment. The worst case was urban
warfare where it is estimated that a seven to one numerical
advantage is needded to conquer that enemy.
Purely as a matter of interest, I am wondering how any equations
derived 100 years ago account for military conditions in 2006, when
both urban environments themselves and weaponry available have
changed so drastically. I mean, technically, an entire urban area
could be vaporized with a single fusion bomb if that were an
acceptable tactic (please no stupid comments from the amoral
Republican peanut gallery), so what's the deal?
Weapons and tactics have advanced a great deal in a hundred years.
The existence of long-duration surveillance drones and night-vision
equipment, for instance, are factors that cannot be offset by a
low-tech adversary with unconventional forces.
The Israelis had the drones, had the night vision goggles, had the
Apache helicopters, had the advanced C3I technology, and Hezbollah
still exists. And the fact that this low-tech adversary was able to
stand up to a high powered second generation warfare system has done
more for Middle East unrest that anything the Arabs could do at the
mosque or meeting hall.
But Hezbollah *wasn't* able to stand up to the Israelis. Not for a
minute. Every time the Israelis moved against them, all the Hezbie's
could do was to die in droves. The only thing that saved the Hezbollah's
***** was their massive media disinformation campaign and international
pressure on Israel.
Do the math, with an extimated 40,000 insurgents, we are only half
way manned. The results are as expected. The enemy is able to
plink us off one or two at time. We will not win with the current
manning levels. The draft is politically unfeasable. So we either
pull out or get slowly plinked off. I would also point out the the
latter choice does little but consume war materails to no real
benefits. I would call the deliberate consumption of materials
where the enemy cannot be vanquished to be "aiding and abetting"
that enemy. And in wartime, that's treason.
That makes sense.
I imagine that only an opposite-party administration could get away
with really ratcheting up troop numbers to the extent that they are
now seemingly required, as they will be able to blame the previous
group for getting us into the mess. This is a non-partisan comment;
I assume the same would hold if a Democrat ever started a war as
well. A same-party administration would have to admit the original
strategy was flawed, and neither political party in the US has the
kind of fortitude to do that to itself. I don't expect it will
happen, but if someone honestly believed that we should commit the
necessary manpower to stabilize Iraq, they would virtually have to
vote Democrat in the future.
Might I suggest that you're fighting the War of 2003, not the
present conflict as it exists in Iraq? For one thing, you aren't
accounting for the existence of the Iraqi military. Rather than
drafting American troops to ratchet up the force relations, why
don't you understand realize that the Iraqi army is taking up that
responsibility?
Because I read articles like these:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002929528
_iraqarmy14.html
Sounds like the reporter is trying to make a big deal out of a cultural
issue. He's not talking about anything like mutiny, nor even really high
readiness impacts, and he doesn't say whether these rather informal AWOL
soldiers are returning to duty or not.
American GIs say that they are quite impressed with their Iraqi
counterparts' willingness to fight in the face of casualties.
For another, you aren't fully aware of the quality of reported
information. You say that the press is "embedded" but do you really
know how many reporters are actually embedded with military units,
as opposed to operating exclusively out of the Green Zone? You've
seen how the press was manipulated by Hezbollah in the recent
Israeli conflict. The MSM regularly uses the same sort of
compromised sources in Iraq.
Naturally, you said it yourself, the truth is the first casualty in
warfare. But when I hear nothing but rose colored goodness from the
administration, I have to ask can this all possibly be true?
I wonder when exactly you ever heard nothing but rose colored goodness
from the administration? They have never said that this was going to be
easy. Quite the contrary.
Especially considering the truth of that old military axiom "when the
battle is going to good to be true, you are walking into an ambush".
When you hear nothing but body counts from the MSM, you can be sure that
they're not telling you everything. "200 killed in Iraq" doesn't tell
you that there was a major counterterrorist offensive in Anbar province
that captured over six hundred other enemy. Same for Afghanistan, where
there has been a major NATO offensive against the Taliban for months
now, but to hear the reporting, you'd think that the Taliban were doing
all the killing instead of most of the dying.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Some days the impatience with Iraq just seems artificial — as though
the real argument is about something else entirely." - Dinocrat
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hotel Charlie One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 07:11:23 PM |
|
|
"Mark Stahl" <stahl@nospam.aecom.yu.edu> wrote in
news:Ieudnau4irNIK4PYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
"Hotel Charlie One" <hotel_charlie_one@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns984E3E6F846E0cipciphc1@199.45.49.11...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in
news:1159618888.535723.260020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm "Veteran US
journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration.
He makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released
on Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time
last year.
Not really. The press in "embedded" or if you prefer "in bed with"
the military. DoD has full control over where those reporters go,
so they can do a bit of pre-censoring. Sure, an ambitious reporter
could leave the Green Zone and go out on his own, but he had better
look Middle-Eastern to try that trick. Blue eyes equals target.
Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but
Iraq has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately.
And so the runup for Iran with the same bold claims made by US
officials and denied by numerous UN agencies. Bet on the US going
it alone it Iran just like the quick cakewalk in Iraq when the UN
asks for restraint.
Not that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since
reports on violence in Afghanistan are growing.
If he were Clinton he would bomb and aspirin factory, But Fearless
Leader is no wuss and bedsides there are still countries in the
Middle East not at war.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers may
well have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't hear
the administration admitting to it.
There is no choice on that. About 100 years ago the idea of
mathematically solving troop strengths culminated in the "Lancaster
Equations". These were a series of differential equations which
gave insight tnto troop strengths needed to take out an enemy in a
given environment. The worst case was urban warfare where it is
estimated that a seven to one numerical advantage is needded to
conquer that enemy.
Purely as a matter of interest, I am wondering how any equations
derived 100 years ago account for military conditions in 2006, when
both urban environments themselves and weaponry available have
changed so drastically. I mean, technically, an entire urban area
could be vaporized with a single fusion bomb if that were an
acceptable tactic (please no stupid comments from the amoral
Republican peanut gallery), so what's the deal?
The Lancaster Equations dealt with ground operations to conquer
territory. You are right that "one good nuke can ruin your day", but
making someone else's capital radioactive does not meet a rational
definition of "bringing democracy" to the region.
Do the math, with an extimated 40,000 insurgents, we are only half
way manned. The results are as expected. The enemy is able to plink
us off one or two at time. We will not win with the current manning
levels. The draft is politically unfeasable. So we either pull out
or get slowly plinked off. I would also point out the the latter
choice does little but consume war materails to no real benefits.
I would call the deliberate consumption of materials where the
enemy cannot be vanquished to be "aiding and abetting" that enemy.
And in wartime, that's treason.
That makes sense.
I imagine that only an opposite-party administration could get away
with really ratcheting up troop numbers to the extent that they are
now seemingly required, as they will be able to blame the previous
group for getting us into the mess. This is a non-partisan comment;
I assume the same would hold if a Democrat ever started a war as
well. A same-party administration would have to admit the original
strategy was flawed, and neither political party in the US has the
kind of fortitude to do that to itself. I don't expect it will
happen, but if someone honestly believed that we should commit the
necessary manpower to stabilize Iraq, they would virtually have to
vote Democrat in the future.
It just completes the saying -
War is too dangerous to be left in the hands of generals
And war is too serious to be in the hands of politicians.
--
The actions of the disgraceful Clinton and Bush administrations
make it possible for me to say without shame that I deeply regret
the day I put the uniform of my country. The freedoms that I was
willing to protect with my life are being lost. The America of
our founders is dead. All we are waiting for now is rigor mortis.
HotelCharlieOne
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 12:32:49 PM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm
"Veteran US journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration. He
makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on
Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time last
year. Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but
Iraq has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately. Not
that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since reports on
violence in Afghanistan are growing.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers may well
have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't hear the
administration admitting to it.
Budikka
How's about *that* for timing. This just in from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/30/iraq.main/index.html
:A curfew is in effect in Baghdad banning virtually all movement in the
city, police said. The curfew -- from 11 p.m. Friday (3 p.m. ET)
through 6 a.m. Sunday (10 p.m. ET Saturday) -- was announced late
Friday on Al Iraqiya state-run TV. Baghdad Emergency Police confirmed
the curfew to CNN. It entails a complete ban on vehicular or pedestrian
movement. The U.S. military told CNN that it learned of the curfew
from the media. A military spokesman later added that the decision to
implement the curfew was made by the Iraqi government due to increased
attacks over the past two weeks."
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 02:19:46 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2006 05:21:28 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote in message
<1159618888.535723.260020@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm
"Veteran US journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration. He
makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on
Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed given how shocking the
reported violence is, especially when it's growing over this time last
year. Corpses are being turned up in depressingly large numbers, but
Iraq has definitely slipped quietly from front-page news lately. Not
that that's helped the floundering Bush administration since reports on
violence in Afghanistan are growing.
And still there appears to be no exit strategy. Troop numbers may well
have to grow before they can be reduced. But you won't hear the
administration admitting to it.
Budikka
There's definitely concealment going on. Now, Iraqi civilians that are
blown up by IEDs or suicide bombers aren't counted as casualties, so
the count appears to have gone down recently.
But it's a lie, as so much else about Iraq has been a lie.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 04:07:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 05:21:28 -0700, Budikka666 wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5393964.stm
"Veteran US journalist Bob Woodward has claimed that the true extent of
insurgent attacks in Iraq has been hidden by the administration. He
makes the claim in a book, State of Denial, due to be released on
Monday."
It's hard to see how much can be concealed
Quite a bit actually. Such as, call it "suicide" when the bullet entered
the back of the skull...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 06:49:57 PM |
|
|
i am a radical muslim please read my blog.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Concealing Iraq Violence? |
30 Sep 2006 10:20:27 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:49:57 -0700, kope22222 wrote:
i am a radical muslim please read my blog.
http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
I am an atheist, I think radical religious people are dangerously insane.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
