RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company?

RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 4:40:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich And Reagan.... He brought down the USSR. He may very well have saved Capitalism. He did it with a deeply held inner certainty, so far out of touch with "enlightened" thinking that a great many people are in denial of his greatness to this day. When future college students cover the second half of the 20th Century in US History, Reagan will be the name they have to know and they'll get Clinton and Nixon confused (maybe. My magic 8-ball needs new batteries). Reagan brought down the Soviet Union? No. The Soviet Union went bankrupt first using their money to build outlandish weapons systems because of the cold war, and invading / becoming embroiled interminably in occupying hostile countries, among other things. http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Reagan just happened to be president when all this went down and everybody gives him the credit. Sinergy p.s. On a related note, Monkeyboy is a die-hard supporter of Reagan's policies.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 5:37:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich It's not so much the added troops as the changes in Rules of Engagement. I haven't found any specifics on what precisely those changes may be, it's tactical information and properly considered classified (probably will get printed in the NY Times soon anyway). It may be too late. I hope not. Well, remember how before Bush said we would not be putting US Soldiers under other commands or going house to house? Well, The troops will be embedded into Iraqi units, and going house to house to clean out the "undesirables". I wonder what will happen in the suburbs? The number of troops I've heard we would need is on the order of 250,000 more, for a force of about 400,000 to 500,000 in Iraq. I wonder, why not just admit you can't stay in the game, rather than losing every chip you have on the table?

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 5:38:41 PM)
quote: As harsh as it is to accept that this war is as much about oil supplies as it is about Iraqui freedom, we could hardly have blown our way into Iran and set up shop there. I didn't see Congress authorize funds from the Treasury for this, did you?

WyrdRich -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 6:00:53 PM)
Well that was a long, dry read. I need a frosty beverage to wash it down. I'm a bit puzzled that you posted it, when one of the first things he does is toss out the very assertions you made in the paragraph preceding the link. Bush the 2nd may have claimed to be a 'Reagan Conservative,' but I see no evidence of it in his actions. The man spends like a drunken sailor and didn't even have a Dem Congress to blame it on.

Sinergy -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 6:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Well that was a long, dry read. I need a frosty beverage to wash it down. I'm a bit puzzled that you posted it, when one of the first things he does is toss out the very assertions you made in the paragraph preceding the link. Bush the 2nd may have claimed to be a 'Reagan Conservative,' but I see no evidence of it in his actions. The man spends like a drunken sailor and didn't even have a Dem Congress to blame it on. Hrm, You and I have a different perception of the article, although perhaps this quote may be where you get the idea that he is tossing out my assertions "While the military buildup and other signs of toughness in the Reagan years helped create conditions that made a change of direction by the Soviet Union possible, they did not deterministically lead to only one possible end result." Perhaps I was being too deterministic in my statements. Many things contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. Ronald Reagan does not happen to be particularly significant from what I have read. If you would mind providing something that indicates the causal relationship between Reagan's presidency and the fall of the Soviet Union, I would be interested in reading it. Sinergy

MzMia -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 6:38:46 PM)
. Farglebargle states The number of troops I've heard we would need is on the order of 250,000 more, for a force of about 400,000 to 500,000 in Iraq. I wonder, why not just admit you can't stay in the game, rather than losing every chip you have on the table? I have been thinking this for at least a year now, if we can't send or don't have the number of troops we need, why the hell are we there? 400,000 sounds about right for what we are dealing with, and sending 21,000 is not going to cut the mustard.

Sinergy -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 6:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia why the hell are we there? Because Rumsfeld et al were pissed when Monkeyboy's Daddy brought the troops home after Desert Storm. The NitwitCons thought it was a ridiculous waste of money to mobilize, do all that stuff, just to leave. Add that to the hubris that the United States Military can overcome any obstacle, accomplish any mission, and nobody can convincingly say or do anything to stop them. We continue to be there because Monkeyboy doesnt know how to admit he screwed up. He is one of those lovely people who screws up and does something stupid, then does more stupid things to try to cover up the fact that he did something stupid. Sinergy

WyrdRich -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 6:56:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy If you would mind providing something that indicates the causal relationship between Reagan's presidency and the fall of the Soviet Union, I would be interested in reading it. Sinergy Once again, Sinergy, I'll need to ask for your patience. I have another commitment this evening. For the moment, I'll refer you to his First and Second Inaugural Address's and if tomorrow proves less than a 12 hour day, my pathetic connection speed will be directed at finding you something more meaty to chew on.

Sinergy -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/14/2007 7:06:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy If you would mind providing something that indicates the causal relationship between Reagan's presidency and the fall of the Soviet Union, I would be interested in reading it. Sinergy Once again, Sinergy, I'll need to ask for your patience. I have another commitment this evening. For the moment, I'll refer you to his First and Second Inaugural Address's and if tomorrow proves less than a 12 hour day, my pathetic connection speed will be directed at finding you something more meaty to chew on. Fair enough. Regarding his Inaugural Address number one and two. I am sure he and his speech writers believed that he played a pivotal role in ending the Soviet Union. From the article I cited, the conclusion of the author is that Reagan's approach to dealing with the Soviet Union brought us to the brink of nuclear war more than once. Sinergy

NorthernGent -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 2:15:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. On a related note, Monkeyboy is a die-hard supporter of Reagan's policies. Sinergy, I started to type something around this a few pages back but lost commitment half-way through and binned it. Anway, I agree. The neo-liberal economic policies currently governing US foreign policy were the brainchild of reagan and thatcher. These two put us on the road to this - bush is merely closing out reagan's policies.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 2:56:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Sinergy, I started to type something around this a few pages back but lost commitment half-way through and binned it. Anway, I agree. The neo-liberal economic policies currently governing US foreign policy were the brainchild of reagan and thatcher. These two put us on the road to this - bush is merely closing out reagan's policies. Thatcher would never have approved of the deficit Bush has caused, if Thatcher was the American President, millions would be out of work to get the books balanced.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 8:17:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Sinergy, I started to type something around this a few pages back but lost commitment half-way through and binned it. Anway, I agree. The neo-liberal economic policies currently governing US foreign policy were the brainchild of reagan and thatcher. These two put us on the road to this - bush is merely closing out reagan's policies. Thatcher would never have approved of the deficit Bush has caused, if Thatcher was the American President, millions would be out of work to get the books balanced. Let's see... approx. 300,000,000 people in the US. 1/2 of them are available for workforce, approx. 150,000,000 Unemployment's running about 4.5%... 150,000,000 * .045 = 6, 750,000 . We HAVE millions out of work.

Archer -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 8:41:20 AM)
Well lets see the numbers I have seen crunched don't see anywhere near 400,000 troops being needed, Gotta wonder where the numbers they used came from the ratio of population to controling force in a control oriented posture that is what Bush seems to want to shift to is estimated by the experts at 40 to 1. Considerin that only 3 of th 16 or so provinces are at issue the population of only those 3 provinces require the 40 to 1 ratio the rest of the provinces seem to be under control with the current numbers in them. So lets see 15, 000 additional troops in Bahgdad alone will mean an additional 600,000 controled by US trops with the match of Iraqi troops that makes 1.2 million additional controled population in Bahgdad. With another 4,000 placed West of the city to increase control of that province. Now Where did the 400,000 troops esimate come from??? Lets see 40 to 1 400,000 troops could control 16 million people, thats close to the entire population of the country so likely as not that's where the number came from, but even a coursory look at the situation as it really exists on the ground tells us that we already control 13 provinces with no additional troops in a relatively calm manner. So the estimate was made in my opinion deliberately high to mislead those who don't look beyond or have the background of what those nubers mean. Looking at more realistic numbers instead 6 million population would require 150,000 troops total to control based on the experts ratio of 40 to 1 15,000 additional troops in the city would put the Force level in Baghdad alone in the 130,000 range. Seems pretty close to the ratio required, the add in the additional Iraqi troops and you end up over the 150,000 troops needed for the ratio to be met.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 8:53:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Well lets see the numbers I have seen crunched don't see anywhere near 400,000 troops being needed, Gotta wonder where the numbers they used came from the ratio of population to controling force in a control oriented posture that is what Bush seems to want to shift to is estimated by the experts at 40 to 1. Considerin that only 3 of th 16 or so provinces are at issue the population of only those 3 provinces require the 40 to 1 ratio the rest of the provinces seem to be under control with the current numbers in them. So lets see 15, 000 additional troops in Bahgdad alone will mean an additional 600,000 controled by US trops with the match of Iraqi troops that makes 1.2 million additional controled population in Bahgdad. With another 4,000 placed West of the city to increase control of that province. Now Where did the 400,000 troops esimate come from??? Lets see 40 to 1 400,000 troops could control 16 million people, thats close to the entire population of the country so likely as not that's where the number came from, but even a coursory look at the situation as it really exists on the ground tells us that we already control 13 provinces with no additional troops in a relatively calm manner. So the estimate was made in my opinion deliberately high to mislead those who don't look beyond or have the background of what those nubers mean. Looking at more realistic numbers instead 6 million population would require 150,000 troops total to control based on the experts ratio of 40 to 1 15,000 additional troops in the city would put the Force level in Baghdad alone in the 130,000 range. Seems pretty close to the ratio required, the add in the additional Iraqi troops and you end up over the 150,000 troops needed for the ratio to be met. Doesn't Lt General Peter Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual specify 20 per thousand? so that's 6,000,000 / 1,000 * 20 or 120 thousand troops. Hmm... That's all fucked up. Makes me wonder what our troops are doing, since they're obviously not being used correctly, since we HAVE 120,000 troops there already. Well since 20 per thousand isn't doing the job, would 40 per do it? 60 per? Maybe the job can't be done at all? After all, when you've gone house to house, and removed the "Undesirables", then what do you do? Build a wall around Baghdad? Well, then you can't say that IRAQ is secured, and if all you care about is securing Baghdad, WTF are we doing there?

Archer -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 9:11:57 AM)
Did you miss the fact that the other 13 provinces are already more or less "pacified" for the lack of a better discription? Thus there is no huge need to increase troops in the already "pacified" provinces right????? 20/1000 = 1/50 unless my math is faulty there? so the 1/40 is higher (ie more troops per thousand). The idea is not to so much run everyone out but rather to make no safe place to be practicing the violence, when that choice comes to them it is assumed they will make one of two choices leave the city, or stop the fighting. One would think the prefered action in the US view would be to stop the fighting and stay in the city.

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 9:17:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Did you miss the fact that the other 13 provinces are already more or less "pacified" for the lack of a better discription? Thus there is no huge need to increase troops in the already "pacified" provinces right????? 20/1000 = 1/50 unless my math is faulty there? so the 1/40 is higher (ie more troops per thousand). The idea is not to so much run everyone out but rather to make no safe place to be practicing the violence, when that choice comes to them it is assumed they will make one of two choices leave the city, or stop the fighting. One would think the prefered action in the US view would be to stop the fighting and stay in the city. So, they follow basic Guerilla doctrine, and when the troops go house to house in Baghdad, just pick up and move to one of the other provinces. Great. And there aren't enough troops, because all you thought you needed to do is worry about the CURRENT hot spots. It would be cool if the enemy was really that stupid, but they've been doing exactly this sort of shit for 4000 years, and they DO have the homefield advantage.

meatcleaver -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 9:17:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Did you miss the fact that the other 13 provinces are already more or less "pacified" for the lack of a better discription? Thus there is no huge need to increase troops in the already "pacified" provinces right????? That's exactly what the thinking is in Britain, an increase in US forces won't make any difference to the reduction in British forces this year because everything is going to plan in the southern four provinces (apparently).

mnottertail -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 9:20:51 AM)
couldn't we have some kind of elite hit force that could travel to the places that people seem to be overstocking garbage bags in hopes of finding the marauders before they actually stuff bodies in them, I mean is our intelligence capable of something that intricate? LOL, Ron

farglebargle -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 9:22:01 AM)
And I wonder, when Iraqi Kurdistan declares Sovereignty and the Turkish Army invades ( as in Independent Kurdistan is seen as a threat, what with the Turkish Kurds wanting to seccede, also.. ) what will we do about our NATO allies as they roll across the border? We got enough troops to back up our friends the Kurds, or do we fuck them over again, just like after Gulf War I?

mnottertail -> RE: Who is going to help us take on Iran and company? (1/15/2007 9:26:16 AM)
I think this is another problem, because if we weren't already suffering massive outflows of cash on a lost cause (which I believe is terrorist inspired, they are hitting the pocket book, they will eventually bring us to our knees in that fashion, so the militant world wide lets slaughter the hemisphere are aiding and abetting the terrrorists unwittingly) well we could have bought Turkey off pretty easily, as we always did.... FUCK the KURDS? There is no question we will do that. They haven't anything worth taking, they want independance, fuck that........ Ron

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875