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?
I'll agree Bob on this one.
Now back to your answer to the question of what you mean by overwhelming
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.