OT: Pol and Missing Explosives!

Page 2 of 2  
not JUST more ground troops. That is the point you really need to look at before you tout Kerry as having the better plan from this point on. As I stated earlier, Kerry wants to double the ground troops to act as police.... not as an offensive force. Our troops will remain in the defensive posture they are in. The same defensive posture Kerry criticizes as having been avoidable. The same posture Kerry points to and says," look at them all dying". Now you can argue how we got here. You can even argue there is a unavoidable period at this point making necessary for our men and women to assume such a role before handing it all back over to whatever governing body Iraq is going to be left with and you can even argue about the effectiveness of such a body.....
Please Fred, without talking about anything but this moment on, tell me how you can argue that placing more troops in Iraq, in essence increasing the number of "sitting ducks" makes any sense?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can't speak for Fred but... Massive numbers of troops reinforcing each other can overwhelm and intimidate an enemy where small number are just that... sitting ducks.
bob g.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
oh.. ok.....I didn't realize more of our troops massed together would be more intimidating than the explosives packed in the car being driven by a suicidal pawn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'll agree Bob on this one.
Now back to your answer to the question of what you mean by overwhelming force:
"not JUST more ground troops."
That is stil pretty vague but I suppose you mean more air support since there isn't much call for naval support.
Can you suggest how that overwhelming force that does not take the form of ground troops can be effective against guerilla tactics?
Overwhelming force that causes more colateral civilian casualties is exactly what the insurgents and foreign resistance want. That is the strategy that won the Vietnam War.
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Overwhelm- 1: upset,overthrow 2 a: to cover up completely b: to overcome by superior force or numbers c: to overpower in thought or feeling
You, Bob and I have all used this word yet we've used it in different context. When I say overwhelming force I do not mean a presence that will hopefully cause the insurgents to "feel" they are overpowered. When I say "not JUST more troops" I mean that merely increasing the numbers without the intent of actually crushing the enemy is merely increasing the numbers of our casualties. As we should have learned in Vietnam, you have to fight a war without hamstringing your military for the sake of public opinion. As you have stated, the insurgents are using that against us. Your candidate is using that to further his career.
As I stated earlier, "we" are a tad bit too squeamish when it comes to the reality of war.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The camera crew and the troops they filmed were all lying as well, eh ? Your hero, Joe Goebbels, would applaud your efforts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@fastmail.fm says...

Did you miss the Pentagon press briefing yesterday in which the Major in charge of EOD in that region indicated he had destroyed a significant quantity of explosives from that site? Total tonnage by the way is less than 1/1000 of all ordnance thus far destroyed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The latest on this is that the Major destroyed a different cache of weapons at the same facility--the ones destroyed did not have the U.N. seal on them, were from a different part of the facility, and were not "plastic explosives" but other ordinance (see AP reports on Sunday, 10/30). These same reports raise the issue of the total amount of captured/destroyed/to-be-desroyed weapons. While the White House says some 400,000 tons of weapons have been or will be destroyed, there are some 250,000 known tons yet to be secured or found. I have yet to see independent verification of these figures, and I have a difficult time trusting WH figures.
Personally, I think a commander-in-chief bears responsibility for the conduct of military operations under his watch. If those operations go FUBAR, he takes the fall; after all, he's the guy who hires his advisors, takes their advise and makes the decisions. If any of these parts fail, it's his failure--it's his responsibility--this is called the "chain of command". He's said he doesn't think his running of the war needs to change. That's twice the failure, in my book.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...

You can't change the definition of WMDs just so you can claim you weren't wrong when you believed Bush et al.
A WMD is nuclear (as in mushroom cloud), biological (as in anthrax), or chemical (as in nerve gas or mustard gas).
What's missing in Iraq is plain old plastic explosive.
There is NO nation of any consequence that does NOT have plastique! Do you want to invade them all?
You should probably go into politics, you seem to be capable of twisting the truth as much as any politician.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.