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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (49360)	10/4/2002 4:50:15 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "I know it's divisive to rehash the VietNam war, but since the author describes the war as one between the US and a "weak" foe, I think it should be noted that the North VietNamese were a proxy for the Soviets, as the mujahideen were a proxy for the US." This is true, but that only explains why it is that North Vietnam shot down so many US aircraft over North Vietnam. The supply pipeline from North Vietnam to South Vietnam was sufficiently narrow that the Viet Cong initially used mostly weapons stolen from (or given them by) the South Vietnamese army. The truth is that 58,000 US soldiers were killed by guys wearing sandals made out of discarded tires. The Iraqis are far better equipped than the Vietnamese even wished they were, and the exigencies of counter-guerilla warfare have not changed that much since 1975. It's still a fact of life that guerillas that are supported by a civilian population are essentially invisible. Israel's troubles are proof of this, and the Palestinians have very little in the way of armaments, compared to what is already in Iraq. The fact is that it just doesn't take a lot of weapons and ammo to cause a lot of injuries in a guerilla war. In a real war, the vast majority of ammunition fired off is wasted. But guerilla warriors simply don't need that much. With guerilla war, the objective is to shoot and run. You might only fire a few rounds before running and hiding. If you're a good shot (like the shooter near Washington DC who, oddly enough, is using a military round, is obviously setting up slowly and methodically, and doesn't seem to have a preference for any particular type of victim, just like a terror sniper in Palestine would do), you can come close to "one shot one kill". -- Carl P.S. Did you bother to read the US Army College account of the Israeli siege of Beirut? See #reply-18070975 for a taste of what Baghdad would be like. Except that the Baathists would be fighting on their own territory and therefore more likely to receive support from the civilians, have had more time to prepare positions, started with much more weapons, and far outnumber the Palestinians. Despite the differences, all of which suggest that the siege of Beirut is easy compared to the siege of Baghdad, the Israelis attacked with 70,000 men. This is why any realistic US attack would require at least 250,000 -- and a draft to get to a million if it turns into an occupation vs guerilla conflict.