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: i-node who wrote (166259)	3/30/2003 2:19:30 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583422

The 4th is still enroute two weeks after the war has started; Precisely as planned. Right! NOT! What is your problem......do you change things in your head to fit the position that makes Rumsfield look best? The 4th was supposed to be based in Turkey. When that didn't happen they started moving down south. Here's a link to jog your memory: debka.com As explained this morning, the war plan called for being able to adapt to either a long or a short war. Thus, a "rolling" deployment was planned. Why have the 4th sitting uselessly in the South when they can't be employed, effectively cutting the length of time they can be used when they are called on? This seems, to my untrained eye, a brilliant use of force -- not unlike JIT inventory that has been so successful in large businesses. You're scaring me..........this is not at all what's happened. I need to see a link that gave you all this info. there is no northern front to speak of which allows the Syrians, Kurds and Iranians [and maybe the Turks] to play with us and do what they want to do There is no evidence this has been a problem. I think it was reasonable for them to hold out hope the Turks would come around; but they have adjusted marvelously to the fact that they haven't. They now have the necessary airfields to deal with the lack of a Northern front. Huh? There is no evidence that its been a problem? You need to do some reading. we don't have enough troops to adequately guard an unusually long supply line causing more casualties You must be nuts!!! Nobody could have envisioned the minimal number of casualties they have sustained in this regard as of today. Nobody. The war is only two weeks old. we counted on the Shiites to take up arms and fight with us instead they remain passive We certainly did not "count on" them. Where have you seen any indication we expected them to "take up arms"? We hoped they would be able to be more helpful at this point, but I've seen no indication we were "counting" on them. Huh? and shock and awe failed to do what we had hoped I'm not sure what we hoped. I think we did use propanganda appropriately to attempt to save lives. It hasn't worked, but that in no way represents a failure of the 'war plan'. Get it, country boy.....shock and awe was supposed to demoralize the enemy into quitting. It did not.....deal with it. that's a lot to have go wrong in two weeks. Out of the things you listed, not one of them is correctly classified as "something that went wrong". I was never in the military, but in my reading of history, had ALL of the things you listed been things that had "gone wrong", this war to date would still be remarkably successful. This is why your posts are increasingly irrelevent. You twist everything so that Bush comes out smelling like a rose. Believe what you want but the comments I made are coming from military officials. I did not make them up like you have yours.