The Good Pogue
D. Spencer Hines
David Pogue
"In a couple of my daily Pogue's Posts this week, I stepped in a
hornet's nest when I discussed PyMusique. It's a new program that
strips off the copy protection from songs you buy from the popular
iTunes Music Store, leaving you with freely distributable MP3 files.
To me, it's obvious that PyMusique is designed to facilitate illegal
song-swapping online. Yes, I know that you can achieve the same effect
by burning your store-bought purchases to a CD, and then ripping them
back into iTunes. But that's a lot more work than just running them
through a simple program — and it doesn't make PyMusique right.
I was surprised, though, by the range of reactions to PyMusique and
MyCritique of it.
Some of you agreed with me: "The only conceivable reason for wanting to
defeat copy protection is to enable theft. Any other assertion is a red
herring," one of you wrote.
But others insist that PyMusique is not intended to make file-swapping
easier, that it will be used only for honest purposes: "There are
legitimate reasons for people's desires to copy music however they like,
especially with a long history of how CDs, tapes, etc., have been shared
in the past."
To which I say: If you truly believe that a tool used for removing copy
protection will not be used to facilitate illegal music sharing online,
well, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. (Besides, the
comparison to physical copying of media like tapes and CD's is
ridiculous; they're not electronic. You can't exactly fill the Web with
illegal tapes.)
Along the same lines, some of you pointed out that PyMusique was
originally written as a means to allow Linux fans to buy songs (since
Apple hasn't created a Linux version of its software): "The purpose of
the program was not to circumvent iTunes copy protection, but to allow a
user to download from the iTunes Music Store using software that runs on
platforms other than Mac OS."
That argument falls apart on closer inspection, though. First of all,
Apple's software is available for the Mac and Windows. Second, why,
then, did the programmers write a Windows version of PyMusique?
Finally, there are people who truly believe that even if PyMusique (and
software that lets you copy commercial DVD's, written by the same
author) IS used to enable illegal file sharing, that's a good thing.
Stick it to the man, record companies are too greedy anyway, etc.: "DVD
Jon is a hero. Because of him, I can write my own free software to
watch DVDs on the device of my choosing instead of the device the
content creators want to sell me. Oh, by the way, trading content is
not theft."
Matt Deatherage, editor of a newsletter called MWJ, supplied me with a
legally convincing response to all of this in the form of excerpts from
this week's issue:
"You MUST pay for a product or service in the manner that the seller
agrees to accept. You cannot purchase an iPod with your American
Express card if the store doesn't accept American Express. You cannot
mail $20 to Bentonville, Ark., and then enter a Wal-Mart store in Minot,
N.D., and walk out with 40 candy bars. You cannot mail an envelope with
no postage and compensate for it by throwing 37 pennies at a postal
worker.
"Apple agrees ONLY to accept payments made through authorizations using
its own iTunes software — not any other software, nor any other method.
[PyMusique's users are] taking something from Apple without paying in a
manner Apple will accept — and by just about every definition you can
find, that's stealing."
Don't get me wrong: I am NOT a believer in intrusive copy protection.
I'm a strong believer in letting people do what they want with what
they've bought or recorded, as long as it's for their own enjoyment.
For example, I love that you can copy iTunes-bought songs to five
computers, copy them to unlimited iPods, and burn them onto unlimited
CD's. That's the cleverness of Apple's now-standard model: it's copy
protection that doesn't impede honest people in the least. (In my
columns, I've trashed the earlier attempts at online music stores, which
didn't let you do much of anything with your purchases but sit there at
your PC to listen.)
But if the freedom you seek is to make commercially produced music or
videos freely available to all on the Internet, that's another story.
Copying stuff for your own use doesn't hurt anybody. Copying stuff so
other people don't have to pay for it certainly does."
----------------------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
tiglath
"U.S. Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons Was 'Dead Wrong'"
"America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most prewar assessments
about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and know disturbingly little
about current nuclear threats, a presidential commission said Thursday.
[...]
"Bush read a prepared statement, flanked by retired Judge Laurence
Silberman, a Republican, and former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb of
Virginia, co-chairmen of the panel."
[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15184-2005Mar31.html
------------------
The search for the guilty results once more in the punishment of the
innocent.
The intelligent community cooked and served up what the White House
demanded. It is as simple as that.
No shroud of secrecy can hide that evident truth. For there is a
marked difference between bad intelligence that fools everyone and bad
intelligence that fools only those who wanted to go to war.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the other top hawks were told repeatedly by
allies, people privy to intelligence, the media, and prominent citizens
at home and abroad that their picture of a 'mortal threat' from Saddam
Hussein did not conform to reason, was not persuasive, and the case
their secret intelligence was allowing them to make was a weak one.
At that point intelligence at hand should have been shelved until fresh
data and new intelligence corroborated or contradicted it.
Instead the White House remained adamant and told the world that they
knew better. As a result there has been a catastrophe that they are
still trying to sell as a victory. Even if democracy takes hold in
Iraq instead of the new set of tortures posing as democrats, that would
be a Pyrrhic victory to us.
Those responsible for this massive deception and terrible blunder are
still to meet retribution, because the American people are too busy and
content at the bakery and the three ring circus.
a.spencer3
"tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1112296333.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Back to the same old message: Bush wanted an apparently easy apparent
revenge for 9/11. QED.
Surreyman
Claus-Jürgen Heigl
> Back to the same old message: Bush wanted an apparently easy apparent
> revenge for 9/11. QED.
I don't think so. Bush took revenge for 9/11 in Afghanistan. Iraq had
nothing to do with it.
Bush wanted the war against Saddam from the outset. He looked for
something that made it possible for him and found it in the arab
terrorist attack of 9/11. He then redirected the strong feelings about
9/11 against his target.
Claus-Juergen
tiglath
The least all that wrongdoing could produce is a set of lessons
learned. Instead, the WMD report, qualified as "scathing," has no
teeth at all. It faults "the intelligence community" a nameless entity
with no ass to kick or head to roll. Tenet and Powell were rewarded
and put to pasture any connection with failure rubbed out.
Most advances we enjoy, all the good things that have improved our
situation in life came from not doing things like that, by keeping
accountability as a regulator to reward and punish as needed and
encourage right conduct.
I am not surprised at all at the whitewash, that is how government
works at all levels; at most, the incompetent get promoted to new jobs
where they can do less harm. But for Bush that option is not available
therefore others have to take the fall for him, and "scathing" reports
must be produced to absolve him of any wrongdoing.
Democracy remains powerless against the powerful.
Billzz
news:d2jjsr$odm$1...@news2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de...
I used to do contingency and strategic planning "inside the beltway" and
also on NATO, ABCA, and US Army Europe planning staffs.
Most Europeans, as well as most Americans, do not understand that the
president is only one person in a group that includes a number of people who
have to conceive, balance alternatives, wargame outcomes, get resources,
brief commanders, get feedback, and do any number of things before an OPLAN
can come to the OPORD stage.
The president is not a king, dictator, and does not have sole control. I
remember when Nixon was facing resignation and a concern was raised that he
could do something desparate, like "push the red button." Anyone knowing
the system would know that there existed checks to prevent that.
Before 9/11 was one thing, after 9/11 is another thing.
Bush may have wanted war (but I very strongly doubt it.) There were a lot
of people that had to come to the same outlook before action was taken.
The true source for what has happened can be found in the book, "The Clash
of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" by professor Samuel P.
Huntington, of Harvard University. It was written in 1996.
I do not pay any attention to personized remarks, like "Bush wanted
revenge." It does not make any difference what he wanted, it takes a lot of
people to actually do something. Strategic decisions are not based in
emotion, one way or the other.
John Teague
Exactly. All one has to do is pick up and read a copy of the _Kennedy
Tapes_ to understand the complexities involved -- political, military,
social, international diplomacy, and protecting alliances too name a
few.
Now, how a president translates and reports the above to the public
domain is entirely a different matter. Nevertheless, far too often,
those that agree and disagree place far too much weight on what a
president's personal agenda might be.
John Teague
tiglath
Billzz wrote:
>
> Bush may have wanted war (but I very strongly doubt it.) There were
a lot
> of people that had to come to the same outlook before action was
taken.
There wasn't a shortage of those. Persuading Bush (if he didn't want
war) was not hard, it appears.
> The true source for what has happened can be found in the book, "The
Clash
> of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" by professor
Samuel P.
> Huntington, of Harvard University. It was written in 1996.
>
> I do not pay any attention to personized remarks, like "Bush wanted
> revenge." It does not make any difference what he wanted, it takes a
lot of
> people to actually do something. Strategic decisions are not based
in
> emotion, one way or the other.
Yet, a president emotionally disposed to attack Iraq could bring around
the necessary people to go from emotion to strategic decision in not a
long time, depending on how many top officials shared his emotion. In
our case many had it in for Saddam that were in high places in the Bush
administration.
The New York times refines today what I've been saying about the latest
and probably last WMD report.
-------
By comparison, the commission made a tantalizing but oblique reference
to the president. It came in a passage criticizing the vaunted
President's Daily Brief, the super-secret intelligence document that
Mr. Bush and his predecessors have received each morning, complaining
that its "attention-grabbing headlines and drumbeat of repetition" left
misleading impressions, and no room for shadings. "In ways both subtle
and not so subtle, the daily reports seemed to be 'selling'
intelligence," the commission found, "in order to keep its customers,
or at least the First Customer, interested."
-------
A better word may be "satisfied."
I wonder if Dick Cheney had/has a say in the format, tone, and content
of the President's Daily Brief.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15908-2005Mar31.html
Tiglath
"John Teague" <jte...@simanage.com> wrote in message
news:1112395911.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Exactly. All one has to do is pick up and read a copy
> of the _Kennedy Tapes_ to understand the complexities
> involved -- political, military, social, international
> diplomacy, and protecting alliances too name a few.
That may in true in general. But Iraq's specific situation bears review.
It's not unthinkable that one of Bush's motives for the war was revenge.
After all when he enumerated those reasons, "Wanted to kill my Dad" was one
of them.
Couple that with his administration being replete with people who wanted to
take out Saddam, for Israel's sake or other reasons.
Then it is not hard to imagine how the critical mass to make a strategic
decision may have been reached quite soon and easily. With Rumsfeld, Rice,
Wolfowitz, and Cheney being pro-war, Bush's probably with for revenge was
not at all misplaced or objected to.
CIA analysts harden assumptions into presumptions and didn't show any
skepticism for the WMD evidence, the latest report tells us. It places the
blame on those analysts that willfully disregarded calls of caution and
indications that discredited the evidence. Well, no wonder. Those who
insisted on doing something about the shaky evidence lost their jobs. Why
would that be? Because Tenet had it in for Saddam? I don't think so.
Tenet wanted to satisfy his First Customer and Second Customer, Cheney and
Bush.
That is a most plausible explanation for those who remember this sordid
affair from the outset.
John Teague
Tiglath wrote:
> "John Teague" <jte...@simanage.com> wrote in message
> news:1112395911.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > Exactly. All one has to do is pick up and read a copy
> > of the _Kennedy Tapes_ to understand the complexities
> > involved -- political, military, social, international
> > diplomacy, and protecting alliances too name a few.
>
> That may in true in general. But Iraq's specific situation bears
review.
>
> It's not unthinkable that one of Bush's motives for the war was
revenge.
> After all when he enumerated those reasons, "Wanted to kill my Dad"
was one
> of them.
>
> Couple that with his administration being replete with people who
wanted to
> take out Saddam, for Israel's sake or other reasons.
I'm afraid that, like so many other historical questions concerning
presidential decisions, it may be many years before we can view the
primary sources for an accurate analysis of what the current
Administration specifically throught about the Iraq situation.
As presidential historian Peter Beschloss recently pointed out in a
lecture I attended, the fear is recent presidents have been unwilling
to allow audio recordings of their interactions with others. Without
these recordings, it will undoubtedly rob historians (and others) of a
precious primary source -- and force us to rely more heavily on
secondary sources.
> Then it is not hard to imagine how the critical mass to make a
strategic
> decision may have been reached quite soon and easily. With
Rumsfeld, Rice,
> Wolfowitz, and Cheney being pro-war, Bush's probably with for revenge
was
> not at all misplaced or objected to.
Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that Rice and Rumsfeld had
some grave concerns about going to war with Iraq. Cheny and Wolfowitz
certainly were two hawks in the group. It is interesting that if you
compare the Cuban Missile Crisis to Iraq, how there seems to be a
similarity between Stevenson and Powell with regard to how direct
interaction they had with their respective presidents -- especially
early in the process.
Howard Berkowitz
"John Teague" <jte...@simanage.com> wrote:
Are you thinking Rusk and Powell? Stevenson, IIRC, was UN Ambassador
throughout the crisis. Rusk, as SecState, was one of the few that stayed
with LBJ after JFK.
Rice, in her testimony to the 9/11 commission, said she failed to read
some of the qualifying appendices to some intelligence documents. It
wasn't clear which documents she had in mind -- AFAIK, the PDB doesn't
have appendices. Perhaps an NIE or SNIE? An internal NSC digest, which
most administrations have (e.g., National Security Study Memorandum as
opposed to National Security Decision Memorandum, although every
administration seems to rename these two basic documents).
That was not a happy admission on her part, which makes it somewhat
credible.
I'm unsure about Rumsfeld. He's certainly not one of the PNAC inner
circle, and, indeed, Kristol & Co have been attacking him since the
election. He is very clearly focused on force transformation. Could
some reluctance be that the units he'd want to go into Iraq weren't yet
ready? Of course, those units would probably have been Stryker
brigades, about which there have been recent critical reports.
>
> > CIA analysts harden assumptions into presumptions and didn't show any
> > skepticism for the WMD evidence, the latest report tells us. It
> places the
> > blame on those analysts that willfully disregarded calls of caution
> and
> > indications that discredited the evidence. Well, no wonder. Those
> who
> > insisted on doing something about the shaky evidence lost their jobs.
> Why
> > would that be? Because Tenet had it in for Saddam? I don't
> think so.
> > Tenet wanted to satisfy his First Customer and Second Customer,
> Cheney and
> > Bush.
> >
> > That is a most plausible explanation for those who remember this
> sordid
> > affair from the outset.
I think this has merit as far as Tenet's actions, although I don't fully
agree with the reasoning about analysts -- although I haven't fully read
the report of the Presidential Commission on Intelligence with WMD
focus. There are a couple of issues here.
Tenet is not alone in optimizing presentation for the First Customer.
This goes back to Donovan, the OSS, and what was then the best
briefing/presentation shop in Washington DC. The PDB is prepared by a
team in the CIA Office of Current Intelligence from more detailed
analytic reports. The "headline" format enters the picture mostly at
the PDB and other executive briefing document level -- actual analytic
products are much more academic, footnoted, full of code word caveats,
etc.
The Commission makes the significant point that the new NID shouldn't
always be involved in preparing or briefing the PDB. Historically, the
DCI getting to brief the President daily was a status symbol, but it
didn't exactly help the DCI create more time to coordinate the
intelligence community. The Commission sees that coordination and
management as the principal role of the NID. There's nothing wrong with
the National Security Adviser doing the briefing, perhaps with staff
backup from someone in the Office of Current Intelligence.
>
Howard Berkowitz
"John Teague" <jte...@simanage.com> wrote:
Are you thinking Rusk and Powell? Stevenson, IIRC, was UN Ambassador
throughout the crisis. Rusk, as SecState, was one of the few that stayed
with LBJ after JFK.
Rice, in her testimony to the 9/11 commission, said she failed to read
some of the qualifying appendices to some intelligence documents. It
wasn't clear which documents she had in mind -- AFAIK, the PDB doesn't
have appendices. Perhaps an NIE or SNIE? An internal NSC digest, which
most administrations have (e.g., National Security Study Memorandum as
opposed to National Security Decision Memorandum, although every
administration seems to rename these two basic documents).
That was not a happy admission on her part, which makes it somewhat
credible.
I'm unsure about Rumsfeld. He's certainly not one of the PNAC inner
circle, and, indeed, Kristol & Co have been attacking him since the
election. He is very clearly focused on force transformation. Could
some reluctance be that the units he'd want to go into Iraq weren't yet
ready? Of course, those units would probably have been Stryker
brigades, about which there have been recent critical reports.
>
> > CIA analysts harden assumptions into presumptions and didn't show any
> > skepticism for the WMD evidence, the latest report tells us. It
> places the
> > blame on those analysts that willfully disregarded calls of caution
> and
> > indications that discredited the evidence. Well, no wonder. Those
> who
> > insisted on doing something about the shaky evidence lost their jobs.
> Why
> > would that be? Because Tenet had it in for Saddam? I don't
> think so.
> > Tenet wanted to satisfy his First Customer and Second Customer,
> Cheney and
> > Bush.
> >
> > That is a most plausible explanation for those who remember this
> sordid
> > affair from the outset.
I think this has merit as far as Tenet's actions, although I don't fully
John Teague
Right. I was just thinking that it seems that Powell may have been
looked upon, by the more hawkish crowd, as someone to keep at a
distance during the initial days of cabinet discussions, as was
Stevenson by several in the JFK inner circle. Clearly different
positions, and backgrounds, but similar degrees of access it seems to
me.
> Rice, in her testimony to the 9/11 commission, said she failed to
read
> some of the qualifying appendices to some intelligence documents. It
> wasn't clear which documents she had in mind -- AFAIK, the PDB
doesn't
> have appendices. Perhaps an NIE or SNIE? An internal NSC digest,
which
> most administrations have (e.g., National Security Study Memorandum
as
> opposed to National Security Decision Memorandum, although every
> administration seems to rename these two basic documents).
I don't find Rice displayed any unusual negligence on this, since the
information flow up the chain often tends to become ever more focused
and condensed. And yes, I remember the first posts we exchanged, IIRC,
was over the confusion regarding my reference to NSC-68 without
clarifying the specific title -- ;0
> That was not a happy admission on her part, which makes it somewhat
> credible.
Agreed.
> I'm unsure about Rumsfeld. He's certainly not one of the PNAC inner
> circle, and, indeed, Kristol & Co have been attacking him since the
> election. He is very clearly focused on force transformation. Could
> some reluctance be that the units he'd want to go into Iraq weren't
yet
> ready? Of course, those units would probably have been Stryker
> brigades, about which there have been recent critical reports.
A very good question. I am not sure what the answer is. I have
certainly been highly critical of Rumsfeld at times, as you know,
although certainly not for the reasons Kristol and friends have cited.
If not for his current duties, I'd bet the PL could shed light on the
subject.
a.spencer3
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:915f4$424dbb5f$94401b00$26...@STARBAND.NET...
What a lovely ideal world you seem to live in.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
>
> > Yet, a president emotionally disposed to attack Iraq could bring around
> the necessary people to go from emotion to strategic decision in not a
> long time, depending on how many top officials shared his emotion. In
> our case many had it in for Saddam that were in high places in the Bush
> administration.
>
Yep. Despite all the official checks and balances, a strong leader can
'influence' his/her Cabinet/Advisors, whoever. See Blair & Thatcher in the
UK. Obvious cases of personal semi-dictatorship with democracy out of the
window.
Surreyman
Peter Skelton
<jte...@simanage.com> wrote:
>
>Howard Berkowitz wrote:
>> In article <1112407819.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
me.
>
>> Rice, in her testimony to the 9/11 commission, said she failed to
>read
>> some of the qualifying appendices to some intelligence documents. It
>> wasn't clear which documents she had in mind -- AFAIK, the PDB
>doesn't
>> have appendices. Perhaps an NIE or SNIE? An internal NSC digest,
>which
>> most administrations have (e.g., National Security Study Memorandum
>as
>> opposed to National Security Decision Memorandum, although every
>> administration seems to rename these two basic documents).
>
>I don't find Rice displayed any unusual negligence on this, since the
>information flow up the chain often tends to become ever more focused
>and condensed. And yes, I remember the first posts we exchanged, IIRC,
>was over the confusion regarding my reference to NSC-68 without
>clarifying the specific title -- ;0
>
If it isn't Rice's job isn't to make certain that the best data
is used, whose is it? She was unhappy because she knew it was
important and she didn't put enough effort into it.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
WIth all respect, that's nonsense. Emotions are the decision
making process. In his world there are no decisions, no choices
are made.
Peter Skelton
frisbie...@yahoo.com
I just finished reading "The Commanders" about the Panama and Gulf wars
under Bush I. The goal of the book is to show how such decisions are
made. In the US it is a slow, logical process. Often what the public
is told doesn't make much sense but that is just a smoke screen to deal
with the public, which is uninformed and emotional. Bush revenge might
have had something to do with it but surely this is small. The armed
forces are not his personal toy.
On the other hand, there was very little logic in Saddam's actions.
You could say it was emotional but I prefer to say he was just plain
stupid. The armed forces WERE his personal toy.
Peter Skelton
There are good and bad processes leading to decision, but
decision is an emotional process. That is what emotions are for
and that is how the mind works. If you are suggesting decisions
without emotion, you are suggesting decisions without human
involvement.
Good decision making involves good input to the process and good
criteria. It's the emotional matrix that does the weighing and
deciding.
If "The Commanders" suggests that emotions are absent in US
decision making (I rather doubt it does), read a different book.
Peter Skelton
Howard Berkowitz
skel...@cogeco.ca wrote:
How are you using the word "emotion", Peter? If it's in the sense that
the final decision has large elements of intuition and experience, I
agree. If the emotion is anger or hate, I would question that assertion.
>
> Good decision making involves good input to the process and good
> criteria. It's the emotional matrix that does the weighing and
> deciding.
>
> If "The Commanders" suggests that emotions are absent in US
> decision making (I rather doubt it does), read a different book.
>
I would say it deals carefully with intuition and what I'd call
"styles", but not the more raw emotions such as love and hate. Perhaps
the closest that came is to someone like Schwarzkopf, as much as he
could rage at staff, to care very much about not jeopardizing soldiers
more than absolutely necessary.
Howard Berkowitz
<cj...@mxyzptlk.net> wrote:
> In <915f4$424dbb5f$94401b00$26...@STARBAND.NET>, "Billzz"
> Hollywood tells them otherwise, and it matches with their paranoia and
> conspiracy theories. Therefore that's what they believe.
>
It was John Chancellor, IIRC, while he was in government as head of
USIA, that decided to go over to the Pentagon and ask to see the button.
He was cleared into the NMCC, but they did everything they could to
distract his question "Would you like to speak to a B-52 over the North
Pole, Sir?"
Nobody was willing to admit the horrible truth...there is no button.
There certainly is no button in the NCA "football" of release codes and
a probable crypto device, and at least ICBMs and SLBMs use keys. I know
bombers use keys to arm, but I'm not sure if they do for final release.
Fighter-bombers probably do use a final switch, but only after flipping
covered and locked switches and inserting codes.
Lady Chatterly
AUK Registrar <cj...@mxyzptlk.net> wrote:
>
>Hollywood tells them otherwise, and it matches with their paranoia and
>conspiracy theories. Therefore that's what they believe.
It is not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions.
--
Lady Chatterly
"That stupid cunt with the manual replies posting as Lady Chatterly
got pissed off because Fred was tracking the posts." -- Kadaitcha Man
Lady Chatterly
Howard Berkowitz <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>
>Nobody was willing to admit the horrible truth...there is no button.
>There certainly is no button in the NCA "football" of release codes and
>a probable crypto device, and at least ICBMs and SLBMs use keys. I know
>bombers use keys to arm, but I'm not sure if they do for final release.
>Fighter-bombers probably do use a final switch, but only after flipping
>covered and locked switches and inserting codes.
Very good at.
--
Lady Chatterly
"Lady Chatterly is a bot not a fool." -- Matt Giwer
Peter Skelton
Anger and hate are emotions, so they are, or can be, parts of a
decision process. They don't have to be. There's cognition which
can provide/manipulate data and volition which inputs things like
morals and goals. It all churns around but, at some point
(hopefully) the emotional system grabs it and a decision is made.
Using a lot of cognition and good volition results in good
choices.
>>
>> Good decision making involves good input to the process and good
>> criteria. It's the emotional matrix that does the weighing and
>> deciding.
>>
>> If "The Commanders" suggests that emotions are absent in US
>> decision making (I rather doubt it does), read a different book.
>>
>I would say it deals carefully with intuition and what I'd call
>"styles", but not the more raw emotions such as love and hate. Perhaps
>the closest that came is to someone like Schwarzkopf, as much as he
>could rage at staff, to care very much about not jeopardizing soldiers
>more than absolutely necessary.
I'd call S's desire to take care of his troops part of his
volition.
Serenity is an emotional state, so is having your mind made up.
(I'm sure somebody's coined a word for this by now.)
There must be a lot of good stuff about this on the web. When I
last had to visit it several years ago, the easiest to understand
explanations, at least for me, were mixed in with AI stuff.
Peter Skelton
John Teague
Peter Skelton wrote:
> >I don't find Rice displayed any unusual negligence on this, since
the
> >information flow up the chain often tends to become ever more
focused
> >and condensed. And yes, I remember the first posts we exchanged,
IIRC,
> >was over the confusion regarding my reference to NSC-68 without
> >clarifying the specific title -- ;0
> >
>
> If it isn't Rice's job isn't to make certain that the best data
> is used, whose is it? She was unhappy because she knew it was
> important and she didn't put enough effort into it.
>
> Peter Skelton
I don't think I suggested that she is not ultimately responsible for
accurately reading, interpreting, and forwarding her views on the
provided materials. What I am suggesting is that I can understand,
given the process, how a department head can become inundated with
reports and other forms of communications so as to lead to this sort of
analysis error. A lot of this depends on the process of management. Is
Rice a micromanager or a delegator. I don't know the answer to that
question. If you do, I'd be happy to hear your views on the subject.
John Teague
Howard Berkowitz
skel...@cogeco.ca wrote:
I'll ask my lady friend tomorrow. She's a PhD in cognitive psychology.
Peter Skelton
<h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
Please post what she says.
Peter Skelton
PaPaPeng
>The intelligent community cooked and served up what the White House
>demanded. It is as simple as that.
>
>No shroud of secrecy can hide that evident truth. For there is a
>marked difference between bad intelligence that fools everyone and bad
>intelligence that fools only those who wanted to go to war.
Decisions at the President's level should be on policy and grand
strategy. What is good for America? What is good for the world?
Then act acccordingly.
From the discussion I see why do I get the horrible feeling that you
have a clueless White House group that went to war because of
unsubstantiated and unsustantiable tales submitted by their
underlings? And now try to exculpate their lack of critical thought
and responsibility by blaming the same underlings?
Mark Test
news:klvu41l72ns4r40bj...@4ax.com...
> On 31 Mar 2005 11:12:13 -0800, "tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >The intelligent community cooked and served up what the White House
> >demanded. It is as simple as that.
> >
> >No shroud of secrecy can hide that evident truth. For there is a
> >marked difference between bad intelligence that fools everyone and bad
> >intelligence that fools only those who wanted to go to war.
>
>
> Decisions at the President's level should be on policy and grand
> strategy. What is good for America? What is good for the world?
> Then act acccordingly.
PaPa....you have "hit the nail on the head". This is exactly what President
Bush
does, vice what most other politicians do, which is to do what's in their
best interest.
As for Tiglath's comments, he doesn't have all the facts. So the US intel
community got it wrong and so did the British, French, German, and many
other world intel communities. Additionally, the prior Administration
(Clinton) set in motion the US strategy to "remove Saddam from power".
That leaves me to believe the world and the US viewed Iraq as threat
long before Mr. Bush showed up and ACTUALLY DID what the UN
and US had been saying for years was needed, removing Saddam.
Come on Tiglath, no one ever wants to go to war, remember who started
this war BTW, 19 radical Islamists, who were working for Al-Qaeda,
and instead of chasing "ghosts" for decades the US policy is clear,
stabilize the mid-east via democracy to end terrorism.
Mark
--
"You 'll take my life, but I'll take his too...you'll fire your musket, but
I'll run you through."
Iron Maiden (The Trooper)
Fred J. McCall
:a.spencer3 wrote:
:
:> Back to the same old message: Bush wanted an apparently easy apparent
:> revenge for 9/11. QED.
:
:I don't think so. Bush took revenge for 9/11 in Afghanistan. Iraq had
:nothing to do with it.
:
:Bush wanted the war against Saddam from the outset. He looked for
:something that made it possible for him and found it in the arab
:terrorist attack of 9/11. He then redirected the strong feelings about
:9/11 against his target.
What the hell do you people smoke to come up with this stuff?
You DO know that we'd been swapping shots with Iraq on a pretty
regular basis for the preceding 13 years and that it was obvious that
Iraq was about to break out of the sanctions via bribery of France and
Russia, right?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Howard Berkowitz
skel...@cogeco.ca wrote:
See below. It comes closest to confidence in judgement.
> >>
> >> There must be a lot of good stuff about this on the web. When I
> >> last had to visit it several years ago, the easiest to understand
> >> explanations, at least for me, were mixed in with AI stuff.
> >
> >I'll ask my lady friend tomorrow. She's a PhD in cognitive psychology.
>
> Please post what she says.
>
> Peter Skelton
Well, I posed the question, and got a response something like trying to
take a drink from a fire hose. Sue suggested that there were four major
dimensions in decisionmaking:
1. Rational, knowledge-based, procedural, intellectual.
2. Classic strong emotions ("Let's go kill them!")
3. Values-based, which she said is still somewhat emotional,
but deals with the congruence between what a person
considers an ideal -- including ideas like freedom of
expression, freedom of religion, due process of law, etc.
4. Judgmental -- how confident is the decisionmaker that the
decision is the right thing to do?
Peter Skelton
<h...@gettcomm.com> wrote:
>
>Well, I posed the question, and got a response something like trying to
>take a drink from a fire hose. Sue suggested that there were four major
>dimensions in decisionmaking:
>
> 1. Rational, knowledge-based, procedural, intellectual.
> 2. Classic strong emotions ("Let's go kill them!")
> 3. Values-based, which she said is still somewhat emotional,
> but deals with the congruence between what a person
> considers an ideal -- including ideas like freedom of
> expression, freedom of religion, due process of law, etc.
> 4. Judgmental -- how confident is the decisionmaker that the
> decision is the right thing to do?
Thanks.
Peter Skelton
Tiglath
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tUu3e.3772$OX5....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
In our case it was more like the presence of the right elements -- hawks for
Saddam's toppling -- in the necessary numbers to achieve the critical mass
for a strategic decision.
Tiglath
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:i1au41dg7tslhjktb...@4ax.com...
>
> Serenity is an emotional state, so is having your mind made up.
> (I'm sure somebody's coined a word for this by now.)
>
> There must be a lot of good stuff about this on the web. When I
> last had to visit it several years ago, the easiest to understand
> explanations, at least for me, were mixed in with AI stuff.
>
>
> Peter Skelton
"Emotion and emotionally" are words that have been hijacked, just like
"irrational," which merely means without reason, but many people think it
means "crazy." Since emotion has a hand in everything we do, the word
tends to be used to mean acting recklessly, on impulse, passionately,
mindlessly, in anger, or when upset.
In our case I think is fair to use "emotion" as meaning that Bush and many
around has a clear desire to take out Saddam and needed little encouragement
to get going. The War On Terror and the presumption of WMD possession were
enough justification to implement what undoubtedly came from their personal
desire, not only because of their demeanor during the whole affair, but also
because there is nothing else to warrant such war. No one felt really
threatened by Saddam, even those, I dare say, who trusted Bush knew best.
There was no imminent danger to be perceived or actual. All of it is
sufficiently recent to be firm in memory and with references easily googled;
partisan spin and wanton revisionism notwithstanding.
Tiglath
> >> There must be a lot of good stuff about this on the web. When I
> >> last had to visit it several years ago, the easiest to understand
> >> explanations, at least for me, were mixed in with AI stuff.
> >
> >I'll ask my lady friend tomorrow. She's a PhD in cognitive psychology.
>
> Please post what she says.
>
I bet you that's a lady friend likely to keep one flying right.
Tiglath
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-F92C48.2...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> > >
> > >I'll ask my lady friend tomorrow. She's a PhD in cognitive psychology.
> >
> > Please post what she says.
> >
> > Peter Skelton
>
> Well, I posed the question, and got a response something like trying to
> take a drink from a fire hose. Sue suggested that there were four major
> dimensions in decisionmaking:
>
> 1. Rational, knowledge-based, procedural, intellectual.
> 2. Classic strong emotions ("Let's go kill them!")
> 3. Values-based, which she said is still somewhat emotional,
> but deals with the congruence between what a person
> considers an ideal -- including ideas like freedom of
> expression, freedom of religion, due process of law, etc.
> 4. Judgmental -- how confident is the decisionmaker that the
> decision is the right thing to do?
I think 3 and 4 are mostly relevant here. Taste and judgment.
Taste need not be justified. Bush disliked Saddam for obvious reasons.
Judgment needs to be justified, for it is only as good as the evidence it is
based on.
That's where we find a lethal deficit. Massive mis-judgment and then
suspension of judgment when contrary evidence or calls to caution were
voice, because it went against their desire.
Bruce Sinclair
>"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:hcb-F92C48.2...@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>> > >
>> > >I'll ask my lady friend tomorrow. She's a PhD in cognitive psychology.
>> >
>> > Please post what she says.
>> Well, I posed the question, and got a response something like trying to
>> take a drink from a fire hose. Sue suggested that there were four major
>> dimensions in decisionmaking:
>>
>> 1. Rational, knowledge-based, procedural, intellectual.
>> 2. Classic strong emotions ("Let's go kill them!")
>> 3. Values-based, which she said is still somewhat emotional,
>> but deals with the congruence between what a person
>> considers an ideal -- including ideas like freedom of
>> expression, freedom of religion, due process of law, etc.
>> 4. Judgmental -- how confident is the decisionmaker that the
>> decision is the right thing to do?
>
>I think 3 and 4 are mostly relevant here. Taste and judgment.
>
>Taste need not be justified. Bush disliked Saddam for obvious reasons.
>
>Judgment needs to be justified, for it is only as good as the evidence it is
>based on.
>
>That's where we find a lethal deficit. Massive mis-judgment and then
>suspension of judgment when contrary evidence or calls to caution were
>voice, because it went against their desire.
You forgot data. The data they had was wrong. Bad data makes bad decisions.
Always.
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
Tiglath
That would make the underlings driving the march to war. I don't think so.
The White House 'group' was not clueless at all. They set a course and
voiced what was required and the underlings strained to provide the tidbits
necessary to stay that course, but the poor wretches had only bum dope.
But you are right that the whole thing is now blamed on the underlings, as
if their intelligence had been so compelling that left policy makers no
choice but to set the course for war. It's ludicrous.
The doubt factor is built in all of our inferences. Aware of our
fallibility, the Scientific Method works hard at reducing doubt, by
cross-checking the conclusions, with more data and experiments; and that is
what people outside science also do consciously or not when dealing with
grave matters; it is precisely what the White House was asked to do. To
let the inspectors bring more data by turning the place upside down -- no
need for Arabic speaking spooks, or risking or assets and methods.
It made perfect sense, but the White House was not for turning, with Rice
famously defending their position with the smoking gun-mushroom cloud
remark.
The refusal to get more data and crosscheck assumptions on a matter so grave
that involved going to war, is what can be said to have become morally
criminal once it resulted in such a waste of blood and treasure, not to
defend our country from a threat, but for the mere chance of giving a new
set of torturers the chance of making democracy work in Iraq, an exercise
with a good probability of ending in a casting of pearls to the swine.
Tiglath
"Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:XTV3e.11404$z.2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Come on Tiglath, no one ever wants to go to war, remember who started
> this war BTW, 19 radical Islamists,
The Saddam -9/11 link is STILL alive and well, in some minds...
Wow!
and
Wow!
Tiglath
"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.s...@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
message news:BVm4e.16002$1S4.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Read again. I wrote: "[judgment] it is only as good as the evidence it is
based on."
Evidence is another word for data here.
Bruce Sinclair
Perhaps ... and yet, it is still irrelevant in these news groups :)
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>
>"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>news:i1au41dg7tslhjktb...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Serenity is an emotional state, so is having your mind made up.
>> (I'm sure somebody's coined a word for this by now.)
>>
>> There must be a lot of good stuff about this on the web. When I
>> last had to visit it several years ago, the easiest to understand
>> explanations, at least for me, were mixed in with AI stuff.
>>
>>
>> Peter Skelton
>
>"Emotion and emotionally" are words that have been hijacked, just like
>"irrational," which merely means without reason, but many people think it
>means "crazy." Since emotion has a hand in everything we do, the word
>tends to be used to mean acting recklessly, on impulse, passionately,
>mindlessly, in anger, or when upset.
>
"Emotion" has been hijacked but it does not mean, or even imply
"without reason," at least in this context.
>In our case I think is fair to use "emotion" as meaning that Bush and many
>around has a clear desire to take out Saddam and needed little encouragement
>to get going. The War On Terror and the presumption of WMD possession were
>enough justification to implement what undoubtedly came from their personal
>desire, not only because of their demeanor during the whole affair, but also
>because there is nothing else to warrant such war. No one felt really
>threatened by Saddam, even those, I dare say, who trusted Bush knew best.
>There was no imminent danger to be perceived or actual. All of it is
>sufficiently recent to be firm in memory and with references easily googled;
>partisan spin and wanton revisionism notwithstanding.
>
Just plain no. Bush & cronies may or may not have had such a
bent, but, if they did, it was a votive, not an emotion. They
would have given a value, like a moral value, to getting rid of
him.
Peter Skelton
Howard Berkowitz
skel...@cogeco.ca wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 02:11:49 GMT, "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> >news:i1au41dg7tslhjktb...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Serenity is an emotional state, so is having your mind made up.
> >> (I'm sure somebody's coined a word for this by now.)
> >>
> >> There must be a lot of good stuff about this on the web. When I
> >> last had to visit it several years ago, the easiest to understand
> >> explanations, at least for me, were mixed in with AI stuff.
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Skelton
> >
> >"Emotion and emotionally" are words that have been hijacked, just like
> >"irrational," which merely means without reason, but many people think
> >it
> >means "crazy." Since emotion has a hand in everything we do, the word
> >tends to be used to mean acting recklessly, on impulse, passionately,
> >mindlessly, in anger, or when upset.
> >
> "Emotion" has been hijacked but it does not mean, or even imply
> "without reason," at least in this context.
While I'm told that somewhat different terminology is used among
cognitive scientists, they do differentiate between "unreasoned" emotion
and "reasoned" values. Another way to think of values is as
"axiomatic".
There is still a dimension of the decisionmaker's confidence in the
judgement. When that's low confidence, people experience "cognitive
dissonance" and tend to avoid acting. That's very common in electoral
behavior.
Alaca
Please leave *soc.hist.medieval* out of this discussion!
--
P.A.
Peter Skelton
or derived form axioms. The work I'm following calls these
votives.
>There is still a dimension of the decisionmaker's confidence in the
>judgement. When that's low confidence, people experience "cognitive
>dissonance" and tend to avoid acting. That's very common in electoral
>behavior.
People may develop "cognitive dissonance," one sees that very
often when folks are choosing among acceptable options all of
which have the same accepted value. OTOH, it can also produce
almost religous fervor in favour of one option, all others being
uttely rejected no matter what data arises.
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
wrote:
> hcb-1AA61E.1...@newsgroups.comcast.net,
>
>
> Please leave *soc.hist.medieval* out of this discussion!
It is your belief that medieval history was devoid of
decision-making?
Peter Skelton
Sheila J
No, I think he's suggesting this group is devoid of medieval history?
tiglath
Bruce Sinclair wrote:
> In article <e6n4e.13338$Fh2.11867@trnddc04>, "Tiglath"
<te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> >"Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> >news:XTV3e.11404$z.2...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> Come on Tiglath, no one ever wants to go to war, remember who
started
> >> this war BTW, 19 radical Islamists,
> >
> The Saddam -9/11 link is STILL alive and well, in some minds...
>
> Wow!
>
> and
>
> Wow!
>
Perhaps ... and yet, it is still irrelevant in these news groups :)
Bruce, The Hapless Net Cop
Tiglath
Goal missed by nearly a third in second straight shortfall
The Army fell almost one-third short of its recruiting goal in March, its
second consecutive month of shortfall amid concerns that the Iraq war is
discouraging young people from enlisting.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/army.recruiting.ap/index.html
-----------------------------
That's right folks, and more eloquent than any poll.
Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy to enroll
in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
The United States armed forces exist to defend our country, not to pursue
the personal goals of the president and his cadre.
The War On Terror is *weakening* our country.
Colin Campbell
>Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy to enroll
>in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
Actually, the parents are watching the news and getting an exaggerated
impression of the danger.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
slick_sleeve
message news:pou751l6ujcdb4c6t...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:38:19 GMT, "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy to
> >enroll in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
>
> Actually, the parents are watching the news and getting an exaggerated
> impression of the danger.
More likely the parents, grandparents, uncles, and cousins who've already
served -- especially during the Vietnam era -- are passing on the warnings
of their firsthand experiences to their impressionable younger relatives
("You saw what happened to Uncle Joe," etc.). Yeah, man, blood's thicker
than water and there's no "exaggeration" about the danger. I'd pay money to
watch what happens when some twenty- or thirty-something recruiter drops by
the house of a high school kid to talk with the parents and finds himself
face-to-face with a fifty-something Viet Vet with a disability and an
"attitude." ROTFL!
Howard Berkowitz
bruce.s...@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) wrote:
Which comes back to #1.
Sheila J
I couldn't agree with you more, Tiglath and this is the reason why I
asked if there was any talk in the US about having to resort to a draft.
I just think that your soldiers have taken too many casualities to
make it an attractive alternative. I do believe there are individuals
out there that join the military without truly having the stomach for
war. And in peacetimes, all too often, that thought can stand. Here, in
Canada, we have already had 2 US individuals ask for refugee status
based on their unwillingness to fight. I have no sympathy for this, in
this situation, as they were already in the Armed Forces. In a draft
situation, I do have empathy for the so-called draft-dodgers and
objectors. But not in the days of a volunteer military.
Interesting, that our recruiting numbers are on the rise. I think the
Iraq war has helped this, although I did see a recruiting Q & A site
recently where two facts were made very clear. 1 - No Canadians are
serving in Iraq unless they are attached to a US unit as an exchange and
2 -You can't join the military as a 'sniper'. I think the
romanticization of warfare happens sometimes and knowing in Canada we
aren't going, but having the silly notion that war might be fun, is
still in the minds of our would-be Rambos.
Sheila J
Exaggerated danger? You've lost over a 1000 soldiers with thousands more
being horrifically injured. I would say that it as a pretty scary
attrition rate for a war that does not impact the American people in any
significant way.
William Black
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:pou751l6ujcdb4c6t...@4ax.com...
>
>
> >Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy to
enroll
> >in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
>
> Actually, the parents are watching the news and getting an exaggerated
> impression of the danger.
More likely the Vietnam generation, who are all over fifty, and so of an age
when their old war stories are listened to by their children and
grandchildren, are telling dreadful stories about their experience and
saying 'Don't go unless you have to, war really is hell'.
This is coupled with watching movies like 'Blackhawk Down', 'Three Kings'
and just about anything about Vietnam. The US Army is almost invariably
shown in trouble and desperate (or full of nice people being crushed by an
overweening and autocratic authority), probably because the movie makers
need dramatic tension rather than any deep dislike of them.
In the UK there's a very big difference in attitude to the various armed
services, and movies (well ok then, TV shows) about modern the British
army do tend to be positive, although I believe there's a problem with
Territorial Army recruitment.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
tiglath
Exactly. The disconnection between the American people and the front
like leads people like that poster to think that the dangers of war are
exaggerated.
He looks at the mall full of shoppers, his pizza piping hot, his
favorite TV reality shows starting punctually...
Where is the danger?
No danger.
He probably doesn't know that the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents have
completely destroyed TWENTY (20) of our M1 Abrahams tanks, and disabled
scores more. Yes folks people with rifles and explosives are cracking
the "best tanks in the world" as if they were walnuts.
Sheila is right. The more than 1500 young Americans who will never
have piping hot pizza again and the seldom mentioned tens of thousands
mutilated and seriously injured that don't see a mall too often, KNOW
first hand how dangerous it is to be in the armed forces.
Their sacrifice would certainly be worthwhile to defend our freedom and
keep us safe, but is it certainly not to defend the freedom of Iraq, a
country with no shortage of fit men, who should be doing all the dying
for their freedom instead of our boys. We would even give them weapons
and money to fight, but it is the Iraqis who must spill their blood for
their freedom not us.
Many patriotic young men and women understand that and while they are
prepared to pay the ultimate price defending their country, they are
not prepared to squander their lives in foreign militaristic adventures
of a government that should know better after Viet-Nam.
Michael W Cook
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:38:19 GMT, "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy to enroll
>> in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
>
> Actually, the parents are watching the news and getting an exaggerated
> impression of the danger.
Really.
I suppose the heavily armed insurgents who attacked Abu Ghraib the other
day, wounding 44 US soldiers, came for a picnic and game of cards.
The US troops in Iraq, like the Crusaders of the 11th Century, hide behind
their concrete and steel walls which in turn are attacked almost every day.
When they do venture out they do so in heavily armed groups with helicopter
and jet support just a radio call away.
Exaggerated ?
I don't think so, you don't even see half of what is happening on the news,
primarily because it's too dangerous for any reporters to go outside of the
protected zones.
It's exactly the same in Afghanistan too.
Some victory, eh ?
tiglath
Michael W Cook wrote:
game of cards.
>
> The US troops in Iraq, like the Crusaders of the 11th Century, hide
behind
> their concrete and steel walls which in turn are attacked almost
every day.
> When they do venture out they do so in heavily armed groups with
helicopter
> and jet support just a radio call away.
>
> Exaggerated ?
>
> I don't think so, you don't even see half of what is happening on the
news,
> primarily because it's too dangerous for any reporters to go outside
of the
> protected zones.
>
> It's exactly the same in Afghanistan too.
>
> Some victory, eh ?
Conquest is not the same as control.
Jack Love
For a view somewhat different than this orgiasmic thread of idiocy.
http://austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=204 (read the whole thing)
Here are details on the April 2 and April 4 Abu Ghraib assaults (April
4, via AFP). I will quote at length since I can’t get a permalink:
Five people were wounded in a (suicide) bomb blast near Baghdad’s
Abu Ghraib prison just two days after a brazen attack on the notorious
facility, as Iraqi politicians held more talks to try to agree on the
shape of the new government. ..
…The US military released further details of Saturday’s sunset
assault on Abu Ghraib, saying there were about 50 casualties among the
rebel attackers in an ensuing battle with US-led forces.
It said about 40 to 60 gunmen took part in the two-hour attack
which involved two car bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and
small arms. About 44 US soldiers and 13 detainees were wounded.
“Apache helicopters and artillery fire began to engage the
attackers. The terrorists were forced to withdraw after suffering an
estimated 50 casualties,” it said in a statement…
The Abu Ghraib attacks follow this March 31 report by the New York
Daily News on the overall decline in daily attacks in Iraq:
Insurgent attacks in Iraq have fallen dramatically since the Jan.
30 elections, and the number of U.S. deaths reported this month
dropped to the lowest in a year.
But the news isn’t all good. Militants are focusing their attacks
on Iraqi government and security officials as the new leaders of Iraq
assume a greater role in their fragile nation.
Last fall, when the U.S. launched a major offensive against
Fallujah, attacks ranged from 80 to 90 a day, said Brookings
Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon. They’re now down to 40 to
45 a day in recent weeks, lower than the preelection average of 50 to
60 a day.
The latest U.S. casualty happened in western Iraq yesterday, when
a Marine was killed by a land mine close to the Syrian border, the
U.S. military said.
No other information was disclosed. The area, Al Qaim, is in Anbar
Province, a region rife with insurgents who continue to attack U.S.
and Iraqi military service members.
Elsewhere, gunmen in southern Iraq opened fire on more Shiite
Muslim pilgrims making their way to a religious festival in Karbala,
killing one person and fueling fears that insurgents may target the
gathering that draws hundreds of thousands of people every year.
Attacks Monday on pilgrims planning to celebrate the al-Arbaeen
festival killed four people, including two police officers guarding
pilgrims.
In other developments, the Al Jazeera satellite channel aired a
tape that purported to show three Romanian journalists kidnapped in
Iraq and possibly an American. The State Department confirmed a U.S.
citizen was taken hostage with the three Romanians but gave no
additional information.
NOTE: Daily attacks are a very rough metric. Many “attacks” in Iraq
consist of a single mortar round or RPG round fired in haste—pure
harassment fire.
tiglath
Jack Love wrote:
>
> NOTE: Daily attacks are a very rough metric. Many "attacks" in
Iraq
> harassment fire.
Noted. To you clearly just like being given the finger when you block
the left lane as you listen to Fox News.
Michael W Cook
1112813892....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "tiglath"
<te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
Is that before or after he starts whooping USA USA USA ?
Howard Berkowitz
thread title, to picture a fence. The length of the fence is covered
with uneasily perched sharp-beaked birds, all trying to watch one
another simultaneously.
While they are not strictly hawks, it does also remind me of the theory
that vultures make the best airline passengers, as any baggage they take
is carrion.
Colin Campbell
>Exaggerated danger? You've lost over a 1000 soldiers with thousands more
>being horrifically injured. I would say that it as a pretty scary
>attrition rate for a war that does not impact the American people in any
>significant way.
From your usage it appears that you do not know what an 'attrition
rate' is.
And if you are unable to use that term - why should we think you
understand what does or does affect the American people?
Colin Campbell
>Exactly. The disconnection between the American people and the front
>like leads people like that poster to think that the dangers of war are
>exaggerated.
Or an alternative conclusion may be that I have been at the front and
have seen the news exaggerate the situation over there.
FYI, I just came back from a year in Iraq. I have watched the news
coverage and compared it to what I saw with my own eyes and reports
from the troops involved in the incident.
>
>He looks at the mall full of shoppers, his pizza piping hot, his
>favorite TV reality shows starting punctually...
Talking about yourself?
>
>Where is the danger?
>
>No danger.
>
>He probably doesn't know that the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents have
>completely destroyed TWENTY (20) of our M1 Abrahams tanks, and disabled
>scores more. Yes folks people with rifles and explosives are cracking
>the "best tanks in the world" as if they were walnuts.
Actually I know that the enemy has not destroyed that many tanks.
Just because 20 tanks were 'destroyed' does not mean that they were
all destroyed by enemy action.
You have to consider: tanks destroyed in accidents and those that may
have been automatively disabled and destroyed so they do not slow down
the operation.
>
>Sheila is right. The more than 1500 young Americans who will never
>have piping hot pizza again and the seldom mentioned tens of thousands
>mutilated and seriously injured that don't see a mall too often, KNOW
>first hand how dangerous it is to be in the armed forces.
"Tens of thousands?" Are you exaggerating or guessing?
Colin Campbell
<hell_no_we_STILL_won't...@go.edu> wrote:
>More likely the parents, grandparents, uncles, and cousins who've already
>served -- especially during the Vietnam era -- are passing on the warnings
>of their firsthand experiences to their impressionable younger relatives
>("You saw what happened to Uncle Joe," etc.). Yeah, man, blood's thicker
>than water and there's no "exaggeration" about the danger. I'd pay money to
>watch what happens when some twenty- or thirty-something recruiter drops by
>the house of a high school kid to talk with the parents and finds himself
>face-to-face with a fifty-something Viet Vet with a disability and an
>"attitude." ROTFL!
And the problem here is that they are thinking in terms of a war that
ended 30 years ago.
Just about everything about the Army has changed since then and as a
result that 50-something vet is giving bad information.
Colin Campbell
<nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/4/05 4:08 pm, in article pou751l6ujcdb4c6t...@4ax.com,
>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:38:19 GMT, "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy to enroll
>>> in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
>>
>> Actually, the parents are watching the news and getting an exaggerated
>> impression of the danger.
>
>
>Really.
>
>I suppose the heavily armed insurgents who attacked Abu Ghraib the other
>day, wounding 44 US soldiers, came for a picnic and game of cards.
No they came because they were desperate for a victory. Instead of a
victory they got an unambiguous defeat.
(You are aware that we won that battle?)
>
>The US troops in Iraq, like the Crusaders of the 11th Century, hide behind
>their concrete and steel walls which in turn are attacked almost every day.
>When they do venture out they do so in heavily armed groups with helicopter
>and jet support just a radio call away.
So you are admitting that you have no clue as to how military
operations in Iraq are performed?
>I don't think so, you don't even see half of what is happening on the news,
>primarily because it's too dangerous for any reporters to go outside of the
>protected zones.
Then why don't you listen to reports from people (like myself) who
just came back from a year in Iraq? If the reporters were not giving
an accurate story - why not ask the soldiers?
Peter Skelton
Maybe but a great deal hasn't changed and won't. You know, the
stuff like whether it's a good idea to volunteer, or whether you
should trust a recruiter's word not written and signed is pretty
much eternal.
Peter Skelton
Colin Campbell
FYI - he is correct. Most attacks are laughably ineffective.
Sheila J
>
>>Exactly. The disconnection between the American people and the front
>>like leads people like that poster to think that the dangers of war are
>>exaggerated.
>
>
> Or an alternative conclusion may be that I have been at the front and
> have seen the news exaggerate the situation over there.
>
> FYI, I just came back from a year in Iraq. I have watched the news
> coverage and compared it to what I saw with my own eyes and reports
> from the troops involved in the incident.
>
With all due respect, Colin - I think your full of poo-poo. No one that
has ever been in a battle zone would be so blase about warfare. I have
been to several different zones, and warfare is not glamourous. It is
hell -it sucks -and it is absolutely nothing to be so lighthearted about.
Sorry, I don't buy your story.
Sheila J
Your not making any sense Colin and one might suspect the closest you
have come to actual warfare is your video game. Warfare doesn't change.
It gets deadlier with each conflict we go into. The type of warfare
being fought in Iraq is not much different than Vietnam when it comes
down to actual lives being lost. This time it is urban warfare as
opposed to 'jungle warfare' but guerrilla tactics do not change nor does
hatred. Sorry...like I said...I'm not buying it.
Sheila J
Oh, let me guess. YOu were a reporter? Please!!!!! That makes you an
expert in combat?
Colin Campbell
>With all due respect, Colin - I think your full of poo-poo. No one that
>has ever been in a battle zone would be so blase about warfare.
And you know this -how?
>I have
>been to several different zones, and warfare is not glamourous. It is
>hell -it sucks -and it is absolutely nothing to be so lighthearted about.
Suuerrree you have.
When and where?
>
>Sorry, I don't buy your story.
That is your problem.
Colin Campbell
>Your not making any sense Colin and one might suspect the closest you
>have come to actual warfare is your video game. Warfare doesn't change.
>It gets deadlier with each conflict we go into. The type of warfare
>being fought in Iraq is not much different than Vietnam when it comes
>down to actual lives being lost. This time it is urban warfare as
>opposed to 'jungle warfare' but guerrilla tactics do not change nor does
>hatred. Sorry...like I said...I'm not buying it.
And just what makes you think that you understand the nature of the
fighting in Iraq?
Please tell me why I should think that you know more about this than I
do? (This thread is being cross posted to a US Army newsgroup and we
can use the laugh.)
Renia
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 23:05:57 GMT, Sheila J <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Your not making any sense Colin and one might suspect the closest you
>>have come to actual warfare is your video game. Warfare doesn't change.
>>It gets deadlier with each conflict we go into. The type of warfare
>>being fought in Iraq is not much different than Vietnam when it comes
>>down to actual lives being lost. This time it is urban warfare as
>>opposed to 'jungle warfare' but guerrilla tactics do not change nor does
>>hatred. Sorry...like I said...I'm not buying it.
>
>
> And just what makes you think that you understand the nature of the
> fighting in Iraq?
>
> Please tell me why I should think that you know more about this than I
> do? (This thread is being cross posted to a US Army newsgroup and we
> can use the laugh.)
Go on, Major Sheila, give us a laugh. :-)
Renia
Colin Campbell
>Oh, let me guess. YOu were a reporter? Please!!!!! That makes you an
>expert in combat?
24 years 'in service' with the US Army?
Being a combat veteran before I went to Iraq?
The various courses and training I have been given to prepare me for
the battlefield?
The fact that I just spent a year in Iraq working in brigade level
headquarters?
Now - just what are _your_ qualifications?
Sheila J
Everyone in my newsgroup knows both my academic background and my
military background. I'm a serving snr officer with a PhD in military
affairs. I write regularly for Janes Defence and have authored books on
the military. That is what makes me qualified. You are a rambo-wannabee
that has absolutely no idea what real warfare is. If you were anywhere
near combat at any point in your life, you would know how absolutely
laughable your meanderings have been. War is hell -it's that simple.
Sheila J
Well, there was an Irishman, a Englishman and a Canadian........
Ooops...I never was very good at jokes!
Tiglath
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:9fq851hq6d9lpi5pc...@4ax.com...
> On 6 Apr 2005 11:58:12 -0700, "tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jack Love wrote:
> >>
> >> NOTE: Daily attacks are a very rough metric. Many "attacks" in
> >Iraq
> >> consist of a single mortar round or RPG round fired in haste-pure
> >> harassment fire.
> >
> >
> >Noted. To you clearly just like being given the finger when you block
> >the left lane as you listen to Fox News.
>
> FYI - he is correct. Most attacks are laughably ineffective.
>
>
And bee sting is but a nuisance but try a few hundred of them.
Anyone who belittles over a thousand dead and well over ten thousand of
badly injured in combat after our mission was allegedly "accomplished,"
commits the crass error of underestimating the enemy, something Sun-Tzu
warned against millennia ago and triumphalists can't yet digest.
Tiglath
>
> >
> >Where is the danger?
> >
> >No danger.
> >
> >He probably doesn't know that the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents have
> >completely destroyed TWENTY (20) of our M1 Abrahams tanks, and disabled
> >scores more. Yes folks people with rifles and explosives are cracking
> >the "best tanks in the world" as if they were walnuts.
>
> Actually I know that the enemy has not destroyed that many tanks.
You do? How?
Any sources?
Check this, for one.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm
It looks that if you were in Iraq at all, you must have been something like
a caterer serving piping hot pizza to fighting men, and oblivious of what is
happening to our tanks, for you seem to know little that's specific.
> Just because 20 tanks were 'destroyed' does not mean that they were
> all destroyed by enemy action.
Do we have self-destroying tanks? Great news.
>
> You have to consider: tanks destroyed in accidents and those that may
> have been automatively disabled and destroyed so they do not slow down
> the operation.
>
I am sure there are a few, but the reports are not counting those.
> >
> >Sheila is right. The more than 1500 young Americans who will never
> >have piping hot pizza again and the seldom mentioned tens of thousands
> >mutilated and seriously injured that don't see a mall too often, KNOW
> >first hand how dangerous it is to be in the armed forces.
>
> "Tens of thousands?" Are you exaggerating or guessing?
>
What's your figure for troops injured in Iraq.
Ominous
>>
>> FYI, I just came back from a year in Iraq. I have watched the news
>> coverage and compared it to what I saw with my own eyes and reports
>> from the troops involved in the incident.
>>
>
>
> With all due respect, Colin - I think your full of poo-poo. No one that
> has ever been in a battle zone would be so blase about warfare. I have
> been to several different zones, and warfare is not glamourous. It is
> hell -it sucks -and it is absolutely nothing to be so lighthearted about.
>
> Sorry, I don't buy your story.
I get pretty much the same story from my son (and a few of his mates).
They're in Mosul. Are they lying to me?
Tiglath
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 18:04:55 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
> <nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 6/4/05 4:08 pm, in article pou751l6ujcdb4c6t...@4ax.com,
> >"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 13:38:19 GMT, "Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy to
enroll
> >>> in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
> >>
> >> Actually, the parents are watching the news and getting an exaggerated
> >> impression of the danger.
> >
> >
> >Really.
> >
> >I suppose the heavily armed insurgents who attacked Abu Ghraib the other
> >day, wounding 44 US soldiers, came for a picnic and game of cards.
>
> No they came because they were desperate for a victory. Instead of a
> victory they got an unambiguous defeat.
>
> (You are aware that we won that battle?)
>
Although better than the other way around it's not all that significant.
There are no set battles in guerrilla warfare. Skirmishers count on being
repelled by definition. Their strength lies is being able to cause some
injury or death each time they hit you. There are notably more Palestinian
fighters dead than Israeli soldiers every year, yet the conflict continues.
Keith W
"Sheila J" <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:pXZ4e.915051$Xk.642064@pd7tw3no...
> Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>>
>
>
> Your not making any sense Colin and one might suspect the closest you have
> come to actual warfare is your video game. Warfare doesn't change. It
> gets deadlier with each conflict we go into.
This claim is rather hard to jsutify when one examines the
percentage of casualties over a given time period
Example
US forces in Iraq number approx 140,000 and there have been
around 1000 killed in a 2 year period
US Forces on Iwo Jima numbered approx 70,000 . In 6 weeks
of fighting 6,800 troops were killed and 19,000 were injured
On the first day of the battle of the Somme in 1916
some 200,000 British and Commonwealth troops
were killed.
At the battle of Waterloo 25% of the Allied troops
present became casualties in a single day.
At Gettysburg around 6000 men were killed
and 26,000 men wounded of a combined force
of around 180,000 men in just 3 days
So please explain the logic behind the claim that
the conflict in Iraq is 'more deadly' ?
Keith
Colin Campbell
>
>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message news:iap8511odmpvoiklv...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >
>> >Where is the danger?
>> >
>> >No danger.
>> >
>> >He probably doesn't know that the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents have
>> >completely destroyed TWENTY (20) of our M1 Abrahams tanks, and disabled
>> >scores more. Yes folks people with rifles and explosives are cracking
>> >the "best tanks in the world" as if they were walnuts.
>>
>> Actually I know that the enemy has not destroyed that many tanks.
>
>You do? How?
>
>Any sources?
>
>Check this, for one.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm
>
>It looks that if you were in Iraq at all, you must have been something like
>a caterer serving piping hot pizza to fighting men, and oblivious of what is
>happening to our tanks, for you seem to know little that's specific.
You notice - of course - that your reference does not support your
claim that the enemy has destroyed 20 tanks?
>
>
>
>
>> Just because 20 tanks were 'destroyed' does not mean that they were
>> all destroyed by enemy action.
>
>Do we have self-destroying tanks? Great news.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> You have to consider: tanks destroyed in accidents and those that may
>> have been automatively disabled and destroyed so they do not slow down
>> the operation.
>>
>
>I am sure there are a few, but the reports are not counting those.
>
>
>> >
>> >Sheila is right. The more than 1500 young Americans who will never
>> >have piping hot pizza again and the seldom mentioned tens of thousands
>> >mutilated and seriously injured that don't see a mall too often, KNOW
>> >first hand how dangerous it is to be in the armed forces.
>>
>> "Tens of thousands?" Are you exaggerating or guessing?
>>
>
>What's your figure for troops injured in Iraq.
>
>
>
Colin Campbell
>
>
>Everyone in my newsgroup knows both my academic background and my
>military background. I'm a serving snr officer with a PhD in military
>affairs. I write regularly for Janes Defence and have authored books on
>the military. That is what makes me qualified. You are a rambo-wannabee
>that has absolutely no idea what real warfare is. If you were anywhere
>near combat at any point in your life, you would know how absolutely
>laughable your meanderings have been. War is hell -it's that simple.
That is mildly interesting.
Exactly how much do you know about the nature of the fighting in Iraq?
Are you really trying to claim that Iraq is like Vietnam?
FYI, I am posting from us.military.army. I do not know who you are
and so far I have seen no reason to be impressed you the content of
your posts.
Nor have I seen any reason to be impressed with your "PhD" opinion
that I could not have been in Iraq - apparently because I am not
emotionally crippled as a result.
Colin Campbell
>Well, there was an Irishman, a Englishman and a Canadian........
>Ooops...I never was very good at jokes!
Well, you are providing laughs for people in us.military.army.
Colin Campbell
>> FYI - he is correct. Most attacks are laughably ineffective.
>>
>>
>
>And bee sting is but a nuisance but try a few hundred of them.
However a few hundred bees stinging an inanimate object is not going
to be any more effective than one bee stinging that object.
>
>Anyone who belittles over a thousand dead and well over ten thousand of
>badly injured in combat after our mission was allegedly "accomplished,"
>commits the crass error of underestimating the enemy, something Sun-Tzu
>warned against millennia ago and triumphalists can't yet digest.
Who is belittling our casualties? And overestimating the enemy can be
just as bad as underestimating him.
You seem to be giving the enemy martial qualities he does not possess.
Colin Campbell
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Sheila J" <mydo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>news:pXZ4e.915051$Xk.642064@pd7tw3no...
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your not making any sense Colin and one might suspect the closest you have
>> come to actual warfare is your video game. Warfare doesn't change. It
>> gets deadlier with each conflict we go into.
>
>This claim is rather hard to jsutify when one examines the
>percentage of casualties over a given time period
>
>Example
>
>US forces in Iraq number approx 140,000 and there have been
>around 1000 killed in a 2 year period
One minor point. The two year period actually had almost 300,000
individual troops in country.
Since we are currently on OIF 3 there is a new 140,000 troops there
now.
Sheila J
What I meant by deadlier is that there are more civilian casualties and
the types of weapons get more deadlier. Granted, the attrition isn't as
high, and that is my mistake in the wording. My point was merely that
war is hell, and that just because we are in modern times, doesn't mean
that warfare is sanitary... as was being alleged.
So, you were correct to call me on that Keith-sometimes what is clear in
my mind, doesn't always come out in my typing.
Sheila J
Colin: What disturbs me about your comment is that you are treating war
as some sort of larkish summer camp. That being in Iraq is not that big
a deal. I disagree. And if you are a soldier that has served, you are
doing your comrades who have died a disservice by alleging that things
are just ducky there. That is my concern. I have been in combat zones -I
am a combat arms officer, although a female. War sucks. It's that simple.
Colin Campbell
>Colin: What disturbs me about your comment is that you are treating war
>as some sort of larkish summer camp.
When did I say this? All I stated is that things are not as bad as
the news makes it out to be.
>That being in Iraq is not that big
>a deal. I disagree.
I have been there - have you?
>And if you are a soldier that has served, you are
>doing your comrades who have died a disservice by alleging that things
>are just ducky there.
When have I stated that things are 'just ducky?' We are fighting a
war. We are winning the war. And sometimes the enemy gets lucky.
(I am starting to suspect that you have been jumping to conclusions
instead of simply asking me questions to clarify points you are unsure
of.)
Since you state that you write for Janes - I recommend that you do the
math and find out what percentage of US soldier have become either
seriously wounded or killed - then see if you can find any war where
the casualty rate was so low.
>That is my concern. I have been in combat zones -I
>am a combat arms officer, although a female. War sucks. It's that simple.
I am assuming that you are a Canadian military officer. IIRC somebody
identified you as a Major. Based on my US Army experience I would
guess that you probably have somewhere between 10 and 15 years of
service.
I cannot recall (with the exception of Canadian SOF in Afghanistan)
any instance where Canadian forces engaged in actual warfighting. I
undoubtedly may have missed something so please correct me if
appropriate.
I find it interesting that you are trying to tell an Iraq veteran what
it was like in Iraq . . .
Colin Campbell
>What I meant by deadlier is that there are more civilian casualties and
>the types of weapons get more deadlier. Granted, the attrition isn't as
>high, and that is my mistake in the wording. My point was merely that
>war is hell, and that just because we are in modern times, doesn't mean
>that warfare is sanitary... as was being alleged.
I challenge you to post a quote from myself where I made this claim.
Or withdraw this statement.
And I consider myself to be asking this of a Commissioned Officer.
Mark Test
news:fDR4e.6664$Tm5.3314@trnddc07...
>
> Goal missed by nearly a third in second straight shortfall
> The Army fell almost one-third short of its recruiting goal in March, its
> second consecutive month of shortfall amid concerns that the Iraq war is
> discouraging young people from enlisting.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/army.recruiting.ap/index.html
>
Sounds like you may be envious of the fact that an ALL volunteer force
consistently maintains the strongest military force on the planet.
You want maybe the Army to draft folks???
Mark
--
"You 'll take my life, but I'll take his too...you'll fire your musket, but
I'll run you through."
Iron Maiden (The Trooper)
Bruce Sinclair
>"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
>news:fDR4e.6664$Tm5.3314@trnddc07...
>>
>> Goal missed by nearly a third in second straight shortfall
>> The Army fell almost one-third short of its recruiting goal in March, its
>> second consecutive month of shortfall amid concerns that the Iraq war is
>> discouraging young people from enlisting.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/05/army.recruiting.ap/index.html
>>
>Sounds like you may be envious of the fact that an ALL volunteer force
>consistently maintains the strongest military force on the planet.
It may be the "strongest" ... but I think you'll find china has more men.
Depends what you are meaning.
As to drafting folks ... they are welcome to try :)
Bruce
-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce
Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
Mark Test
>
>
> Exaggerated danger? You've lost over a 1000 soldiers with thousands more
> being horrifically injured. I would say that it as a pretty scary
> attrition rate for a war that does not impact the American people in any
> significant way.
Tragic as any death is....we lost over 5,000 taking Iwo Jima, thousands in
the first hour
of Normandy.....glad you folks weren't around then....we'd all be speaking
German
if you were. Bottom line: noone wants or likes war, unfortunatley they
happen every
now and then. Like when fanatical Islamics want to take down the Western
societies.
Your argument that this war does not directly impact Americans could have
been
made during WWII. Why did the US declare war on Germany? They didn't
attack us, the Japanese did.
Tiglath
> >
> >Check this, for one.
> >
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm
> >
> >It looks that if you were in Iraq at all, you must have been something
like
> >a caterer serving piping hot pizza to fighting men, and oblivious of what
is
> >happening to our tanks, for you seem to know little that's specific.
>
> You notice - of course - that your reference does not support your
> claim that the enemy has destroyed 20 tanks?
>
>
You notice -- of course -- that it says, "80 of the 69-ton behemoths have
been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States."
It more than supports my claim. It fact, it far exceeds it. You notice
that it completely rebuts YOUR claim: "Actually I know that the enemy has
not destroyed that many tanks."
But in case you don't believe me because you might think I am a Democrat,
how about a Republican source in the nation's capital?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050331-121140-3544r.htm
"The enemy has destroyed more than 20 of the 68-ton armored fortresses and
disabled scores more, not with sophisticated anti-tank weapons, but with
relatively crude rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and roadside bombs."
Unless you have sources to discredit those, you should, at the very least,
admit error and concede the point
Keith W
Compare and contrast the civilian casualties during the taking
of any major German city such as Cologne, Frankfurt or
Beelin with those in Iraq.
During the liberation of Manila over 100,000 Phillipinos were
killed
Consider what happened to Atlanta, Richmond and Vicksburg
during the US Civil war, they looked more like Hiroshima
than Baghdad
The weapons are getting more precise which is resulting
in far fewer civilian casualties.
Keith
TOliver
>
>
> Your not making any sense Colin and one might suspect the closest you have
> come to actual warfare is your video game. Warfare doesn't change.
That one statement absolutely confirms my conclusion that you are either (a)
sadly demented, or (b) have not the slightest idea of what you're talking
about.
Lady, I've been, briefly and a long time ago, to a "war", a war which was
quite different during the period of my attendance that it later became.
Every war is different.
You claim to have been to a couple. I doubt your claim, other than that you
may have wandered about the sites of a campaign or two, post facto.
> It gets deadlier with each conflict we go into.
By any standard, two years, over 200,00 troops in theater, and 1500 dead of
combat and non-combat causes, this one ain't very bloody. In 1968 or so we
were losing 300+ a week in Viet Nam. In 1944, we lost more than 1500 on a
single day. In 1863, we had 27,000 casualties on a single afternoon. The
current casualty rate reflect a substantial decrease in attacks on US
forces. Having left tow roomates anda groomsman in Viet Nam, I'm perhaps
more sensitive to casualties than mostfolks. Having commanded men makes me
even more so, but your attitude is little more than pompous, uninformed,
ignorant priggery.
You're simply full of shit, Lady....
> The type of warfare being fought in Iraq is not much different than
> Vietnam when it comes down to actual lives being lost.
My God, you silly twit...There's hardly any comparison between the two.
Losses in Iraq are tiny compared to Viet Nam.
(As for the 80 tanks damaged to the point of requiring shipment to the US
for repair, you do realize that on several days during thecampaign in
Northern Europe, we, the US alone, lost more than 80 tanks on several single
days. Not only did we lose them, they were totally destroyed, unrepairable
charred hulks).
> This time it is urban warfare as opposed to 'jungle warfare' but guerrilla
> tactics do not change nor does hatred.
The number of roadside and vehicle bombs employed by the VC during my time
in Viet Nam would have barely filled the fingers of two hands. Conventional
mines and booby traps were far more frequent, but are very rare in Iraq.
Contrary to your claims, the current conflict remains a mix or urban (rare
in Viet Nam except during Tet and at the conflict's end), suburban and rural
insurgency. I find little or no "resemblance" between the two conflicts,
especially in regards to the number and potential of the insurgents and
their accomplishments.
> Sorry...like I said...I'm not buying it.
Your not buying it is altogether the greatest single confirmation of the
truth of whatever it is you're not buying.
Communicating with some regularity with a cousin, a sergeant -(age 50+, no
callow youth) in the Mississippi National Guard deployed in Iraq and a
nephew, helo pilot also there, I receive fairly comprehensive views of the
conflict. It ain't fun, is terribly uncomfortable, and involves substantial
risk. But both of them and enough other reporters communicate a basic
satisfaction the current situation and outlook.
My relatives and the sum total of troops deployed there are volunteers, not
conscripts, even the reserve and national guard troops. Recruiting off?
There are simple and traditional answers, the worst of which is lowering the
current modest (but lots better than during Vietnam) standards for recruits,
but I suspect that predictable "draw downs" from the theater beginning in a
few months may cause enough young folk finding the job market unwilling to
reward them with executive level salaries to show up down at the recruiters.
Let's face it; it's a big country, and these days a small (maybe too small)
military establishment.
TMO
Jack Love
<nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/4/05 7:58 pm, in article
>1112813892....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "tiglath"
><te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jack Love wrote:
>>>
>>> NOTE: Daily attacks are a very rough metric. Many "attacks" in
>> Iraq
>>> consist of a single mortar round or RPG round fired in haste-pure
>>> harassment fire.
>>
>>
>> Noted. To you clearly just like being given the finger when you block
>> the left lane as you listen to Fox News.
>>
>
>Is that before or after he starts whooping USA USA USA ?
Reality check: Austin Bay is a reserver Col. who spent 6 months or so
in Iraq recently, and who has attended flag level briefings as well as
contributed to planning. You think he's an unobjective cheerleader?
Or, are you simply a doofus?
a.spencer3
"tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:1112808150.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sheila J wrote:
> > Colin Campbell wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Our young men and women increasingly think that one must be crazy
> to enroll
> > >>in the Army these days, the way it is being used.
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, the parents are watching the news and getting an
> exaggerated
> > > impression of the danger.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There can be no triumph without loss.
> > > No victory without suffering.
> > > No freedom without sacrifice.
> >
> >
> more
> > being horrifically injured. I would say that it as a pretty scary
> > attrition rate for a war that does not impact the American people in
> any
> > significant way.
>
> like leads people like that poster to think that the dangers of war are
> exaggerated.
>
> He looks at the mall full of shoppers, his pizza piping hot, his
> favorite TV reality shows starting punctually...
>
> Where is the danger?
>
> No danger.
>
> He probably doesn't know that the poorly armed Iraqi insurgents have
> completely destroyed TWENTY (20) of our M1 Abrahams tanks, and disabled
> scores more. Yes folks people with rifles and explosives are cracking
> the "best tanks in the world" as if they were walnuts.
>
> have piping hot pizza again and the seldom mentioned tens of thousands
> mutilated and seriously injured that don't see a mall too often, KNOW
> first hand how dangerous it is to be in the armed forces.
>
> keep us safe, but is it certainly not to defend the freedom of Iraq, a
> country with no shortage of fit men, who should be doing all the dying
> for their freedom instead of our boys. We would even give them weapons
> and money to fight, but it is the Iraqis who must spill their blood for
> their freedom not us.
>
> Many patriotic young men and women understand that and while they are
> prepared to pay the ultimate price defending their country, they are
> not prepared to squander their lives in foreign militaristic adventures
> of a government that should know better after Viet-Nam.
>
Wow, this takes me back. On returning from 'encounters' in the Middle East
(not Iraq - some 45 years ago!), where colleagues were killed alongside me,
I still vividly remember walking down my village street, going into the pub,
and realising "What the xxxxx do these people know or care, what the xxxxxxx
was it all about?".
In the pub I told my friends where I'd just come from and got "Where's that,
then?".
Some good friends of long back lie buried in a patch of sand that no-one in
the UK even bothers about any more, and they probably couldn't even name the
country it's now in.
Our nation was not in any danger. We were just trying to keep a patch of
uninhabited sand that we reckoned was ours.
I'm not being melancholy. This was a massive realisation to me that remains
with me now - that all the theoretical rantings of international politicians
are very often total rhubarb in relation to the reality and the true need.
That remains strongly with me today, and certainly applies to Iraq.
Surreyman