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: Hawkmoon who wrote (135398)	6/3/2004 1:39:18 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

We'll let it stand for the moment that people can differ on matters of historical speculation. What if the Romans had machine guns? We simply don't know how much it would have taken to invade Japan because we didn't do it. For all the supposed supremacy of the military intelligence we get, it seems that in the past (and recent past, specifically) it has been and continues to be poor. We knew that Soviets had rubber submarines to increase the apparent numbers of their fleet only because after one particularly bad storm, we saw several "subs" bent like baloneys in satellite intel photos. We also knew that many of the Red Square parades involved mockups, but only as a result of post-Soviet information releases. Yes, we also survived MAD, but before we pat ourselves on the back, one should listen to what McNamara has to say about it. I recommend the Fog of War. If you play Russian roulette and "win", its hardly worthy of a pat on the back. It wasn't a prudent wager in the first place and to sit back after the first trigger pull and gleefully say "it worked" denies the fact that it was a poor policy in the first place. <Any military expert will tell you that you should always have at least a 3-1 advantage when attempting an assault.> Ah, speaking of the 3:1 advantage... Did we use that in Korea? No. Did we use that figure in Viet Nam? No. Did George H. W. Bush use that figure? No. Did GWB use that number? No. So, the current leader seems to not be very prudent using your very number. You must withdraw your support of this man, since he obviously doesn't require or act on the advice of military experts who suggest such margins. I can say that such a number is necessarily inaccurate and at best, an estimate. There have been historical instances where smaller forces overwhelmed larger ones and in wars of attrition or embargo, significantly smaller forces can neutralize a nation's war waging ability while staying out of an insurgent guerilla war. That was a success story with Iraq, prior to the invasion. No Iraqi was involved in 9/11. That may not be true next time we have a domestic act of terrorism, but you know what, we're so busy angering Muslims in general, we can expect people from Asia to be involved next time. Dubya's intelligence was weak (in at least two meanings, IMO) regarding claims that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S. and had WMDs. Remember him saying "What's the difference?" Well, the difference is that in one case he would be factually correct, and in the other case (the one that actually happened) he'd be factually incorrect. None of that seems to bother this man, unfortunately. He won't even seek the council of his own father, preferring that of the Father upstairs. Scary. Insurgency will grind down America in Iraq (yes, I said that before the invasion) and we can see it happening now. I'm sorry for that. My coworker lost his son-in-law in Iraq recently and he said to me that the death, in his opinion, hasn't made America safer. I agree, sadly. What an utter waste. He'd only been married for two months. BTW, while people are still having weddings as they are in both Afghanistan and Iraq, they can't all be "longing for death and eternity in paradise." We better realize that not every Iraqi is a terrorist (yet) but if we persist in using 19th century imperialist strategies, we'll go down the same path as the British Raj. Iraq is a factory for future problems in the U.S. and the sooner America's hawkish voices realize that, the better for all of us.