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: BigBull who wrote (84697)	3/21/2003 5:32:43 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

/Where the @@#@%# is 101st?* My guess--pure intuition--is that it is being saved for Baghdad.

To: BigBull who wrote (84697)	3/22/2003 6:51:14 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Where the @@#@%# is 101st?* Washington Post, photos of March 21, slide 3: "A convoy of trucks and armored vehicles of the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade Combat Team prepare to cross into Iraq from the Kuwaiti desert." washingtonpost.com story.news.yahoo.com

To: BigBull who wrote (84697)	3/24/2003 1:13:19 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi BigBull; Re: [Friday] "Iraqi 51st division surrenders. Good job Marines. Where the @@#@%# is 101st? Sure hope somebody is skeedaddlin' it up to Kirkuk. NOW would be good!!!!!!" This turned out not to be the case: ... Even so, some of the celebrated capitulations have turned out to be less than advertised. U.S. officials were quick to announce the surrender of the commander of the 51st Division. On Sunday, they discovered that the “commander” was actually a junior officer masquerading as a higher-up in an attempt to win better treatment. ... rutlandherald.nybor.com It's traditional in US politics that when the country gets mired in a quagmire, the military and politicians put on a happy face and make the best of all the news that comes by. But at the same time, they grouse about how stupid the war is in private. Now is no exception. The truth is that the Iraqis kept their best forces around Baghdad. They only kept enough stuff around Basra to keep down rebellion by the local Shiites. But even that much force has been enough to keep us out of Basra. Think about it. Here's a quote from Rumsfeld showing how these fantasies were started: DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers* DefenseLink.mil, December 23, 2002 ... Q: Mr. Secretary, some Iraqi opposition members have been vocal, saying that should President Bush order some military action in Iraq, asking that the Iraqi army soldiers be spared from an initial attack because if it happened, they believe large numbers of them would turn on Saddam immediately. Is that something that you believe would happen should an attack come to fruition? Rumsfeld: I guess I don't really get into the "believes," "might," "should," hypotheticals. *The fact of the matter is, in Gulf War, 70 - 80,000 of the Iraqi Army surrendered almost instantaneously, in a matter of hours and days. I would -- I think it's not unreasonable to suspect that the same might occur in even larger numbers in this instance, but it's not knowable. So, one, the combatant commander, needless to say, has to be prepared for both contingencies. He has to be prepared to cope with a situation where they do not surrender, and by the same token, he has to be prepared -- from a humanitarian standpoint, to be prepared for a situation where they might very well, in which case you have to suddenly switch what it is your task is. And I can assure you that General Franks has thought these things through very carefully, and there's a good deal of evidence that suggests that not everyone is terribly enthusiastic about Saddam Hussein and his regime.* ... defenselink.mil From this you must conclude one of several things: (a) Rumsfeld is a liar, or (b) Rumsfeld has lousy intelligence on Iraq. Instead of mass Iraqi surrenders, the primary feature of this war so far is the fierce nature of Iraqi resistance, even from unorganized militias and civilians. Our problem increases with each day. The reason for this is clear. As we advance further into Iraq, our forces come in contact with more Iraqi civilians, and these guys are shooting us in the back. These are regular joes that are caught behind US lines. Saddam can't give orders to them. They're shooting us completely out of their own volition. These guys are hiding as civilians while our well armed convoys drive past and then ambushing stragglers and logistics trucks. This is just like 'nam. We'll have to send our logistics out with heavily armed escorts. Anyone here remember that? So which is it. Did Rumsfeld lie to you, or is he just stupid? In either case, how is the US going to extricate itself from this? No matter what the US does we're going to end up looking like a paper tiger. *AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WILL LEAVE NORTH KOREA ALONE!!!* Say hello to every shitty little country on the planet playing with nukes. -- Carl