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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (165827)	3/26/2003 7:09:08 PM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583386

Point-Counterpoint: The War on Iraq theonion.com :) -Z

To: tejek who wrote (165827)	3/26/2003 7:59:22 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583386

He's fooling with a new concept of waging war: minimal manpower, maximum tech and armaments. A number of generals are not comfortable with the concept. Oh yes? Name a few ... Every one of them I've seen have been totally impressed. The only exception has been Trainor who was really complaining about Franks' battle plan. As I said, name a few.

To: tejek who wrote (165827)	3/26/2003 8:15:02 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583386

Ted, <Another thing has to do with Rummy. He's fooling with a new concept of waging war: minimal manpower, maximum tech and armaments. A number of generals are not comfortable with the concept. It could be because its new fangled and they don't like it, or it could be because they are right. Probably, we will find out in Iraq.> Actually, the concept has started with the Clinton administration. From intelligence to actual warfare, the concentration was on high tech in order to minimize human exposure and potential American casualties. Look at how the Kosovo conflict was waged with air power alone, for example. After 9/11, it seems intelligence is going back to good ole fashioned field agents. Military-wise, however, we still seem to be very focused on high tech arms. It's understandable, given our reluctance to cause American and civilian casualties. But such a "politically-correct war" brings with it other headaches. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (165827)	3/27/2003 1:59:28 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583386

Ted Re..I understand the theory but if the Iraqis beat us, no matter how they did it, they will go ballistic. I don't think even Sadam thinks he can defeat us militarily. Saddam needs a quagmire, and he hopes to turn world opinion against us. However, using civilians as shields, troops in hospitals, shooting prisoners, etc, will delay turning that world opinion. This can work the other way as well. With all of our tech armaments, we expect we will win hands down, no problem. However, that doesn't make for a given. True, but the great examples given in modern history where forces overcame the odds, Vietnam, and Stalingrad had some key differences. Stalingrad had its winter, and the Russians were able to resupply Stalingrad across a frozen lake, Attica, was resupplied by sea, Vietnam had the North to keep them resupplied. Saddam has no manufacturing capacity to keep him resupplied, no north, or other country to help. So, it won't take long to run out of food,fuel and ammo. It could be because its new fangled and they don't like it, or it could be because they are right. Probably, we will find out in Iraq. It could very well be, both are right. It was on TV tonight that the US has suffered 14 casualties so far, 7 of them from that lost battalion. So the casualties have been quite low so far.