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: Bill Ulrich who wrote (100405)	6/5/2003 6:59:47 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Bill Ulrich; Re: "If six soldiers die in vehicle accidents caused by state-side pot holes or German pot holes, will you blame Bush for that, as well?" Uh, no. The basic fact of life is that war zones are dangerous places. For example, the 507th (the unit that got ambushed and 9 killed early in the war) was driving around at night. The reason for driving at night was so that they could fix broken vehicles and have them ready the next morning. That is something that can be done with more care in peacetime. But don't worry about the details. If I am correct in my analysis of the numbers, our death rate due to undeniable hostile actions will be increasing this summer. This will be due to three things. First, the Iraqi resistance will be learning to run a more effective guerilla campaign. Second, the US will send more troops to Iraq, thereby providing more opportunities for the Iraqi resistance to target. Third, the neighbors of Iraq with which we have lousy relations will begin leaking more assistance to Iraqi resistance groups across those immensely long porous borders. Then you can eat your f'ing words. That's right. Our children are going to be sent to Iraq to die in the sand. We will continue this until the swing voters in the US have had a stomach full of the useless slaughter. My hope is to contribute to that stomach full, and I will do it by rubbing the truth into your incomprehending faces. Here, read this one: Troops: The Body Count Grows MSNBC, June 9, 2003 issue U.S. and British soldiers have been dying at the rate of more than one a day When president George W. Bush declared on May 2 that major combat operations in Iraq had concluded, he stopped short of saying the war was over. And with good reason. SINCE THEN U.S. and British soldiers have been dying at the rate of more than one a day. Last week alone, according to Central Command, 11 soldiers died, possibly as many as eight from hostile fire, bringing total postcombat deaths to more than 30 U.S and British soldiers since May 2. That is more than 15 percent of those killed during the war. ... ... With American generals planning for at least a year-long military presence, at this rate more American soldiers may end up dying after the war than during it. msnbc.com By the way, do you remember what you wrote when I showed an official US military link that implied that the number of US troops required to pacify Iraq was well in excess of the number of troops that were planned? You told me I was wrong, but you wouldn't give any real reason. Instead, you just said "watch and see". Well we watched and we saw, and now we're ramping up the number of troops. In addition, a US military officer has now been fired for saying exactly what I had been saying, but 2 months afterwards. Military science is not rocket science. It's a fairly simple game of numbers. The only thing complicated about it is that when losers play it, they tend to try to get by on smaller budgets than what is safe. Sometimes this works out, but the famous military disasters in history are all examples of operations that were conducted without sufficient numbers to assure a victory. -- Carl