What exactly is the US strategy with regard to IED's?

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This will go on until the insurgents feel they can't win. The press
bashing Bush and the military night after night isn't helping.


Goth Loser <goth__loser@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
> explosives? There seems to be an awful lot of folks driving around
> getting blown up and not even getting a shot off from their rifles. I
> mean it's one thing to volunteer for your country and another to be
> brave enough to face combat but at the very least wouldn't you want to
> squeeze a few rounds off in anger before coming home in pieces?

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1118201158.972273.212110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, goth__loser@hotmail.com says...
>
>Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
>explosives?

The evaluations I've seen are that, between the massive weapons/
explosives caches Saddam had set up around the country which are
now in insurgent hands, and the free flow of same into Iraq, the
insurgents basically have unlimited materials on which to draw.

> There seems to be an awful lot of folks driving around
>getting blown up and not even getting a shot off from their rifles. I
>mean it's one thing to volunteer for your country and another to be
>brave enough to face combat but at the very least wouldn't you want to
>squeeze a few rounds off in anger before coming home in pieces?

Well, given that you might accidently hit a Pat Tillman with
those few rounds instead of an insurgent...

But I don't think we have a strategy except looking out for them,
and prayer.

FW

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 21:42:18 -0700, in rec.photo.digital ,
not_giving@you.my.address.com (Willcox) in
<1gxt2vp.1wpz0iufc6c54N%not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote:

>This will go on until the insurgents feel they can't win. The press
>bashing Bush and the military night after night isn't helping.

Unless, of course, it leads to more effective actions by the
administration and the military. Some of us think that a free press is
a good thing, not a luxury.

>
>Goth Loser <goth__loser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
>> explosives? There seems to be an awful lot of folks driving around
>> getting blown up and not even getting a shot off from their rifles. I
>> mean it's one thing to volunteer for your country and another to be
>> brave enough to face combat but at the very least wouldn't you want to
>> squeeze a few rounds off in anger before coming home in pieces?

--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:39:20 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Gunner
<gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> in
<k57ea15v6tvr9k08gfpfiejt2gdmmel92q@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:39:48 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Ever heard of Rosewood, Medgar Evers, Dr. Martin Luther King... If the south
>>is peaceful, then heaven is hell, and hell is heaven.
>>
>>BTW-Only one question mark is ever needed.
>
>You have a problem with dates and generational concepts,dont you?
>
>a murder 37 yrs ago indicates that the South is a racist hotbed today?

You lost track of the thread, didn't you. No one was claiming that
the South was racist today. The assertion was that invaded countries
resist. The American South was presented as a counter example. The
*past* violent racism was then presented to dispute that argument.

[snip]
>
>Btw-more than two brain cells are needed. Try to round up a few more,
>and a much better grasp of history, past and current.

It is a good idea, before attacking someone's intelligence, to make
sure you have understood the topic. HTH. HAND.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:27:51 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Gunner
<gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> in
<7o6ea15tliahh7fv27eahfai5vofnuuaj6@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 07:54:11 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gunner" <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>>news77da1p9tkib0v7j4kbb3vt9mbti64hdnm@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:06:38 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Never check history before invading a country to steal their resources.
>>it's
>>> >a waste of time.
>>>
>>> Fatally flawed implication. Rest of the buffoons post is of equally
>>> worthless value.
>>>
>>> Gunner
>>
>>Well, gunner, perhaps you sould read some history. When there is an
>>invasion, there is resitance. Ever heard of the French reistance, it's
>>historical gunner. How about the resistance by the Hungarians, and the
>>Poles in 1958 gunner. If Bush would bother to read, he woud have known his
>>armies would meet resitance, but by him, and rumsfelds own admission, they
>>did not figure on stiff reisitance.
>
>Of course Ive heard of them. Im a military historian (amature). And
>as you will note..they were no more than mere thorns in the sides of
>the invaders.

The resistance in Yugoslavia was quite effective though the Germans
were helped considerably by internal warfare. The resistance to the
British in Iraq helped get them out of Iraq. Same for Afghanistan.
Same for the French in Indochina.

One good notion to learn from history is that situations differ. The
question is which is the best comparison. Sometimes invaders loose,
sometimes they win. In order to win it is a good idea to have a good
notion of the goal. We are supposedly at war with "terrorism" and Iraq
is but one battle field of that war.

Well, in today's paper I saw an article that some insurgent leaders
are opening up negotiations with the Iraqi government. (Actually, I
have only skimmed this for reading later, so I don't know what actual
stage this is at.) This got me to wondering. What if the Sunni leaders
negotiate a peace with the Shiite Iraqi leadership? Suppose they agree
to let bygones be bygones. The fighting inside Iraq stops. Is that a
victory for us? We would get/have to withdraw our troops from the
area. That would be a Good Thing (tm). But we might not be able to
have much further influence on the government. If the Iraqi government
says "no prosecutions" do we accept? If they decide to ignore
terrorist training bases do we accept? If not, what actions do we
take? This is a very messy situation and I don't see any good
possible outcomes.

> You will also note that we do not do as the Germans and
>Russians did...kill one in 10 of the local villagers etc etc.

Agreed. We are (currently) much better than the worst we have seen. As
to whether the German killing of 1 in 10 is really better than Free
Fire Zones in Vietnam is another discussion. (Did the Russians do that
as well? Not that they were nice, but I don't remember their using
that particular method.)

>>And since it's the restience that is making the devises that are blowing our
>>kids up, it was Bush, Rumsfeld who made the fatal flaw, but they are not the
>>fatalities, the fatalities are just kids.
>
>Yes and? You are of course aware that a goodly percentage of those
>"resistance" members are foriegn mercenaries and jihadists?

Foreign is a flexible term. If, as Bush claims, this is a war against
terrorism (and terrorist ideologies) then they are not foreign at all.
They are our target by our own declaration. It is not clear to any of
us (and likely not to the military) how significant this "foreign"
presence is.

> The rest
>of course are Baathists and wanna be warlords fighting for their piece
>of the pie. Think of it as the Bloods and Crips trying to fight off
>the police during a crackdown on crack dealers.

A better analogy than you might think. Drugs certainly funds much of
the warfare in Lebanon and Afghanistan.

>>The Ceasers did not figure the resitance of a few horders of barbarians
>>either gunner. Did their empire last the mellenia they figured on, nope,
>>why, because of the resistance to their empire.
>>
>>So, gunner, you show the fatal flaw, and you and I can debate it, but since
>>you can't gunner, you are dismissed as another one sentence wonder, who
>>offers no rebuttal, only bullshit...gunner..lol...sure you are.
>
>(valley girl voice) Whatever.
>
>As to the fatal flaw..your insistance that "we invaded to steal their
>resources" indicates to me that the rest of your arguments are just as
>corrupt and unviable.

I agree that that is a weak argument. It is not clear why we decided
to invade, however. Rather clearly Shrub had Iraq in his gun sights
before 9/11. And rather clearly the arguments we were given for the
invasion were developed after the decision to invade was made. By his
own admission Shrub tends to make decisions by instinct, confident
that he has been shown the way. Work is then done to buttress that
decision.

Personally I favor the notion that Shrub is unhappy with the Elder
Bush. This theory suggests that Shrub decided to invade to show up his
father, not to avenge him. I certainly can't prove this, nor do I
assert it as fact. It is an interested speculation with just enough
evidence to keep it plausible.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:fdaea1d5sol5gg78jtmgfr0i9iiq4mcoia@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:39:20 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , Gunner
> <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> in
> <k57ea15v6tvr9k08gfpfiejt2gdmmel92q@4ax.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:39:48 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Ever heard of Rosewood, Medgar Evers, Dr. Martin Luther King... If the
south
> >>is peaceful, then heaven is hell, and hell is heaven.
> >>
> >>BTW-Only one question mark is ever needed.
> >
> >You have a problem with dates and generational concepts,dont you?
> >
> >a murder 37 yrs ago indicates that the South is a racist hotbed today?
>
> You lost track of the thread, didn't you. No one was claiming that
> the South was racist today. The assertion was that invaded countries
> resist. The American South was presented as a counter example. The
> *past* violent racism was then presented to dispute that argument.
>
> [snip]
> >
> >Btw-more than two brain cells are needed. Try to round up a few more,
> >and a much better grasp of history, past and current.
>
> It is a good idea, before attacking someone's intelligence, to make
> sure you have understood the topic. HTH. HAND.
>

I think poor old gunner lost more than track of the thread.
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
> a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
> there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
> end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
> or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<editor@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1118261138.884887.232330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Goth wrote:
> >Is this like a war of attrition on the >insurgents' caches of explosives?
>
> No - it's a war against insurgents who frankly are VERY
> unsophisticated.

Recently, Donald Rumsfeld told the pentagon press staff, thet the insurgents
were becoming more sophisticaed day by day. In other words. They are using
classic insurgency/counter insurgeny methods of "evade and strike."
History tells us that if deem it any name ie "sophisticated" it is still
effective long term, and it can and will win the war, while not
concentrating on large battles.

(I Cite Afghanistan and Vietnam as my models).

By extension, their methods being deemed "unsophisticated" is exactly what
they want you to think. There is psychology in warfare. And the psycology of
any guerilla warfare is to alwasy be underestimated. Always be in the
shadow. Always make the occupier look over his shoulder. Always make him
examine every step.

If you can kill a few soldiers at a time, after 2 years, you will have
killed close to 1700, and wounded almost 13000, and that, amounts to a US
Army division. In 2 short years. These methods are as old as time itself,
and in term of being effective, they are sophisticated.

(Using the brutality of war as the yardstick to measure the degree of
sophistication.)

(Using the current conflict in Iraq as my model)


One thing to note is that - for all the munitions
> they have access to even now - they never got around to using it to
> make boobytraps, but instead overwhelmingly just used it Lebanon-style
> in remote-control bombs. The Vietcong were infinitely shrewder - using
> almost anything as a boobytrap.

A booby trap by an name is still a booby trap.

I will explain.

The action of the Iraq insurgency and the Vietcong connot be fairly compared
at this juncture of the debate. The difference being the terrain.

The very nature of the grounds, foilage, sky, weather, hills valleys, sand,
grass all contribute to the way the insurgency are going to plan their
stratedgy to rid their land of the occupation. It's "called, their
backyard".

In Vietnan, the nature of booby traps was the nature of the terrain.
Jungles, swamps, shallow rivers, with narrow bridges, Rice Paddies, small
Villagies in the middle of nowhere, the central Highlands. Cities, well
spaced apart.

Trip wires were easy to place in the jungle, but would not be as well hidden
is less thick foilage, such as sand. Most soldiers could spot a wire stretch
out across the sand, or a road. Booby traps could be disguised in any part
of the thickness of the jungle, to include the triple canopy jungles.
I think I dont have to explain that any more.

In Iraq, they do what the have to do. And, a booby trap is any concealed
Esaily Implemented Device. Our soldiers are moblie, traveling roads, so
raoadside expolosives are the booby trap of the day, in Vietnam we humped
through jungles, where we could not see our footing, so trip wires were
placed where aour feet would be.

IE: If you asked a soldier from Vietnam about the booby trap that took his
legs, then asked a vet of Irtaq about the roadside device that took his
legs, there would not be a dimes worth of difference in their explation, or
their description of the devise that ruined their lives. A booby trap, by
any name is still the most effective weapon these people have. Call it a
tripwire, or a rodaside bomb, the sophistication level, and the name are
moot points.



>
> Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
>

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

XTS wrote:
> "Gunner" <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> news77da1p9tkib0v7j4kbb3vt9mbti64hdnm@4ax.com...
>
>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:06:38 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Never check history before invading a country to steal their resources.
>
> it's
>
>>>a waste of time.
>>
>>Fatally flawed implication. Rest of the buffoons post is of equally
>>worthless value.
>>
>>Gunner
>
> Well, gunner, perhaps you sould read some history. When there is an
> invasion, there is resitance. Ever heard of the French reistance, it's
> historical gunner. How about the resistance by the Hungarians, and the
> Poles in 1958 gunner. If Bush would bother to read, he woud have known his
> armies would meet resitance, but by him, and rumsfelds own admission, they
> did not figure on stiff reisitance.
>
> And since it's the restience that is making the devises that are blowing our
> kids up, it was Bush, Rumsfeld who made the fatal flaw, but they are not the
> fatalities, the fatalities are just kids.
>
> The Ceasers did not figure the resitance of a few horders of barbarians
> either gunner. Did their empire last the mellenia they figured on, nope,
> why, because of the resistance to their empire.
>
> So, gunner, you show the fatal flaw, and you and I can debate it, but since
> you can't gunner, you are dismissed as another one sentence wonder, who
> offers no rebuttal, only bullshit...gunner..lol...sure you are.

You live in the States, yes?

Have you ever driven past (or on) a reservation?

Have you ever been to Germany? Japan? Italy?

You were saying?


CC

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"CC" <condor_chef@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:icKpe.25902$DC2.2355@okepread01...
> XTS wrote:
> > "Gunner" <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> > news77da1p9tkib0v7j4kbb3vt9mbti64hdnm@4ax.com...
> >
> >>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:06:38 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Never check history before invading a country to steal their resources.
> >
> > it's
> >
> >>>a waste of time.
> >>
> >>Fatally flawed implication. Rest of the buffoons post is of equally
> >>worthless value.
> >>
> >>Gunner
> >
> > Well, gunner, perhaps you sould read some history. When there is an
> > invasion, there is resitance. Ever heard of the French reistance, it's
> > historical gunner. How about the resistance by the Hungarians, and the
> > Poles in 1958 gunner. If Bush would bother to read, he woud have known
his
> > armies would meet resitance, but by him, and rumsfelds own admission,
they
> > did not figure on stiff reisitance.
> >
> > And since it's the restience that is making the devises that are blowing
our
> > kids up, it was Bush, Rumsfeld who made the fatal flaw, but they are not
the
> > fatalities, the fatalities are just kids.
> >
> > The Ceasers did not figure the resitance of a few horders of barbarians
> > either gunner. Did their empire last the mellenia they figured on,
nope,
> > why, because of the resistance to their empire.
> >
> > So, gunner, you show the fatal flaw, and you and I can debate it, but
since
> > you can't gunner, you are dismissed as another one sentence wonder, who
> > offers no rebuttal, only bullshit...gunner..lol...sure you are.
>
> You live in the States, yes?

Yes.

> Have you ever driven past (or on) a reservation?

Yes.

> Have you ever been to Germany? Japan? Italy?

Japan, 3 times. Hong Kong twice. Vietnam twice. Thailand once.
Okinawa a bunch of time. Guam the same. The Phillipines twice. And some
other Islands in the S. Pacific too.

Ive been to Alaska and Hawaii too. Most of the states, although I avoid the
South...the heat you know.


> You were saying?
>
No, you were, please continue. Entertain me with whatever your point is, and
I promise i will answer you.

> CC

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article <d86r98$sht$3@news.fsr.net>,
> fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) wrote:
>
>> In article <1118201158.972273.212110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> goth__loser@hotmail.com says...
>> >
>> >Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
>> >explosives?

Yes.

>>
>> The evaluations I've seen are that, between the massive weapons/
>> explosives caches Saddam had set up around the country which are
>> now in insurgent hands, and the free flow of same into Iraq, the
>> insurgents basically have unlimited materials on which to draw.

The Marines allowed the resistance to steal enough RDX from one site
alone to blow every U.S. troop in the country into molecules,
individually, ten times over.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"CC" <condor_chef@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lFLpe.25912$DC2.9169@okepread01...
> XTS wrote:
> > "CC" <condor_chef@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:icKpe.25902$DC2.2355@okepread01...
> >
> >>XTS wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Gunner" <gunnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
> >>>news77da1p9tkib0v7j4kbb3vt9mbti64hdnm@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:06:38 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Never check history before invading a country to steal their
resources.
> >>>
> >>>it's
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>a waste of time.
> >>>>
> >>>>Fatally flawed implication. Rest of the buffoons post is of equally
> >>>>worthless value.
> >>>>
> >>>>Gunner
> >>>
> >>>Well, gunner, perhaps you sould read some history. When there is an
> >>>invasion, there is resitance. Ever heard of the French reistance, it's
> >>>historical gunner. How about the resistance by the Hungarians, and the
> >>>Poles in 1958 gunner. If Bush would bother to read, he woud have known
> >
> > his
> >
> >>>armies would meet resitance, but by him, and rumsfelds own admission,
> >
> > they
> >
> >>>did not figure on stiff reisitance.
> >>>
> >>>And since it's the restience that is making the devises that are
blowing
> >
> > our
> >
> >>>kids up, it was Bush, Rumsfeld who made the fatal flaw, but they are
not
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>fatalities, the fatalities are just kids.
> >>>
> >>>The Ceasers did not figure the resitance of a few horders of barbarians
> >>>either gunner. Did their empire last the mellenia they figured on,
> >
> > nope,
> >
> >>>why, because of the resistance to their empire.
> >>>
> >>>So, gunner, you show the fatal flaw, and you and I can debate it, but
> >
> > since
> >
> >>>you can't gunner, you are dismissed as another one sentence wonder, who
> >>>offers no rebuttal, only bullshit...gunner..lol...sure you are.
> >>
> >>You live in the States, yes?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >>Have you ever driven past (or on) a reservation?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >>Have you ever been to Germany? Japan? Italy?
> >
> >
> > Japan, 3 times. Hong Kong twice. Vietnam twice. Thailand once.
> > Okinawa a bunch of time. Guam the same. The Phillipines twice. And some
> > other Islands in the S. Pacific too.
> >
> > Ive been to Alaska and Hawaii too. Most of the states, although I avoid
the
> > South...the heat you know.
> >
> >
> >
> >>You were saying?
> >>
> >
> > No, you were, please continue. Entertain me with whatever your point is,
and
> > I promise i will answer you.
>
> Nice dodge - not.
>
> Your new classification: Obtuse, and in the bit-bucket.
>

Here I am, right here, Im dodging nothing, although my last car was a dodge.
So, you make 2 posts, run away and call me obtuse. Sure thing CC.
> CC

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

XTS wrote:
> "Frank White" <fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com> wrote in message
> news86r98$sht$3@news.fsr.net...
>
>>In article <1118201158.972273.212110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>
> goth__loser@hotmail.com says...
>
>>>Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
>>>explosives?
>>
>>The evaluations I've seen are that, between the massive weapons/
>>explosives caches Saddam had set up around the country which are
>>now in insurgent hands, and the free flow of same into Iraq, the
>>insurgents basically have unlimited materials on which to draw.
>>
>>
>>>There seems to be an awful lot of folks driving around
>>>getting blown up and not even getting a shot off from their rifles. I
>>>mean it's one thing to volunteer for your country and another to be
>>>brave enough to face combat but at the very least wouldn't you want to
>>>squeeze a few rounds off in anger before coming home in pieces?
>>
>>Well, given that you might accidently hit a Pat Tillman with
>>those few rounds instead of an insurgent...
>>
>>But I don't think we have a strategy except looking out for them,
>>and prayer.
>
>
> Looking out for them? Prayer?
>
> No, we need to demand they be brought home. Their deaths are needless. How
> can we look out for our children when they are half a world away?

Is that your solution to everything? Turn tail and run? You commented on
it being a solution for Vietnam, and now your advocating it for Iraq?

We need to finish the war. There seems to be some kind of mistake
concept that it isn't a fair fight if we end it the way the GCs allow us
to end it.

As you say, insurgents after a war is historically predictable.
Historical methods of dealing with insurgents need can be applied.

If you have a better idea than the three options on the table:
1) Bush's kinder, gentler war.
2) Patton's 3rd Army Memorials
3) Your cut and run.

Let's hear it.

> What good will prayer do, bush prays, and more kids die.
>
> It's time to get off your lazzy asses, get on your feet, and demand this
> bullshit come to an end. Unless you are among those who are being
> entertained by the macabre debcable. Then, your tears are glycerin and your
> prayers are offered to the god of death.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:19:09 -0700, in rec.photo.digital ,
not_giving@you.my.address.com (Willcox) in
<1gxukrf.5hegwq1lw6fxlN%not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote:

>XTS <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>> "Willcox" <not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote in message
>> news:1gxubhq.1pin8xs10vx5voN%not_giving@you.my.address.com...
>> > You don't think their habitual critizism of the war effort doesn't
>> > encourage the insurgents?
>>
>>
>> No, flatlly, no, and if you do, you ned to do a complete system check of you
>> mental facilities.
>
>With billions of dollars are spent buying air time and you don't think
>it has an effect?

You have totally lost me here. Who is spending billions on air time
and what for? If you somehow refer to our last election it was not
about criticism of the war effort and it was less than billions.





--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Dvxpe.25707$XA6.7492@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, xts@xyz.com says...
>
>
>"Gvnner" <gvnnerNOSPAM@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
>news77da1p9tkib0v7j4kbb3vt9mbti64hdnm@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 08 Jvn 2005 05:06:38 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Never check history before invading a covntry to steal their resovrces.
>it's
>> >a waste of time.
>>
>> Fatally flawed implication. Rest of the bvffoons post is of eqvally
>> worthless valve.
>>
>> Gvnner
>
>Well, gvnner, perhaps yov sovld read some history. When there is an
>invasion, there is resitance. Ever heard of the French reistance, it's
>historical gvnner.

The French Resistance was little more than a nvisance vntil Germany
attacked the Soviet Union. Then the French Commvnists joined the fight
and things started getting HOT.

Irritated DeGavlle no end, I vnderstand, that it took the Commvnists
to redeem France's honor.

FW

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:

> In article <1gxubhq.1pin8xs10vx5voN%not_giving@you.my.address.com>,
> not_giving@you.my.address.com (Willcox) wrote:
>
>
>>XTS <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Willcox" <not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1gxt2vp.1wpz0iufc6c54N%not_giving@you.my.address.com...
>>>
>>>>This will go on until the insurgents feel they can't win. The press
>>>>bashing Bush and the military night after night isn't helping.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Off course, it was not a poorly planned undermanned invasion. It was
>>>not
>>>the president or Rummy who forgot to factor in resistance. Nope, no
>>>resistance, never in the history of warfare has there been resistance
>>>to an
>>>invasion and an ensuing occupation, nope, it's the nightly news' fault.
>>
>>You don't think their habitual critizism of the war effort doesn't
>>encourage the insurgents?
>
>
> No. Time spent by insurgents reading newsgroups distracts them from
> other activities.
>
Ha! Funny.

;D

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 9 Jun 2005 02:49:14 GMT, in rec.photo.digital ,
fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) in
<d88ana$1tc7$9@news.fsr.net> wrote:

>In article <T9mdnTyh48GtjTrfRVn-tg@comcast.com>, stuart.grey@nospam.comcast.net says...
>>
>>Goth Loser wrote:
>>> Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
>>> explosives? There seems to be an awful lot of folks driving around
>>> getting blown up and not even getting a shot off from their rifles. I
>>> mean it's one thing to volunteer for your country and another to be
>>> brave enough to face combat but at the very least wouldn't you want to
>>> squeeze a few rounds off in anger before coming home in pieces?
>>
>>Things like this happened quite often after WW II in Germany.
>>Insurgents, fighting on after the war, would attack American units.
>>
>>The GC is quite clear; if the enemy holds a city, that city can be bombed.
>>
>>General Patton would order that small arms fire be returned with
>>artilary. Entire city blocks would be leveled. On thing was for sure, if
>>you let the insurgents use your proprty to launch an attack against the
>>Americans, you only did it once. Entire towns became sensitive to the
>>presence of any possible insurgent, as it could mean that their town
>>would become a "third army memorial".
>>
>>Sounds like war is hell. Patton's method worked.
>
>Actually, what it sounds like is the same sort of bullpucky
>people like to sling about regarding Pershing and his way
>of dealing with Islamic troublemakers.
>
>Said story being a complete lie...
>
>You have any cites for Patton actually using the method you
>claim he did?

I made that mistake, I thought he knew what he was talking about.
AFAIK there was no particular insurgent threat in Germany after WWII.
What Patton is most know for is signing up "ex-" Nazis the get things
organized.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:58:36 -0700, Stuart Grey wrote:

> If you have a better idea than the three options on the table:
> 1) Bush's kinder, gentler war.
> 2) Patton's 3rd Army Memorials
> 3) Your cut and run.
>
> Let's hear it.

About a year ago Gen. Odom, presumably not just speaking for
himself but for the Cato Institute as well, essentially said that it
was unfortunate that politicians wouldn't be able to consider a "cut
and run" option (political suicide, no doubt). According to their
analysis, he said that as bad as an immediate withdrawal would be,
all alternative stategies stood a good chance of turning out worse
for the U.S. in the long run. I don't know if their analysis or
position has changed since then.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 01:21:06 -0700, in rec.photo.digital ,
not_giving@you.my.address.com (Willcox) in
<1gxv6zi.1urg0mn1sk739pN%not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:19:09 -0700, in rec.photo.digital ,
>> not_giving@you.my.address.com (Willcox) in
>> <1gxukrf.5hegwq1lw6fxlN%not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote:
>>
>> >XTS <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Willcox" <not_giving@you.my.address.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1gxubhq.1pin8xs10vx5voN%not_giving@you.my.address.com...
>> >> > You don't think their habitual critizism of the war effort doesn't
>> >> > encourage the insurgents?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, flatlly, no, and if you do, you ned to do a complete system check
>> >> of you mental facilities.
>> >
>> >With billions of dollars are spent buying air time and you don't think
>> >it has an effect?
>>
>> You have totally lost me here. Who is spending billions on air time
>> and what for? If you somehow refer to our last election it was not
>> about criticism of the war effort and it was less than billions.
>
>What you see on the nightly news is a reflection of the influence of
>advertising money paid throughout their network. These advertisers will
>benifit substantially if a Democrat gets elected president.

Really now. Would you please tell me more about how this works?


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <n6efa1ddjcfcbv0qb05h701fcccabf5trh@4ax.com>, RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com says...
>
>On 9 Jun 2005 02:49:14 GMT, in rec.photo.digital ,
>fwhite*NOSPAM*@colfax.com (Frank White) in
><d88ana$1tc7$9@news.fsr.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <T9mdnTyh48GtjTrfRVn-tg@comcast.com>, stuart.grey@nospam.comcast.net says...
>>>
>>>Goth Loser wrote:
>>>> Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
>>>> explosives? There seems to be an awful lot of folks driving around
>>>> getting blown up and not even getting a shot off from their rifles. I
>>>> mean it's one thing to volunteer for your country and another to be
>>>> brave enough to face combat but at the very least wouldn't you want to
>>>> squeeze a few rounds off in anger before coming home in pieces?
>>>
>>>Things like this happened quite often after WW II in Germany.
>>>Insurgents, fighting on after the war, would attack American units.
>>>
>>>The GC is quite clear; if the enemy holds a city, that city can be bombed.
>>>
>>>General Patton would order that small arms fire be returned with
>>>artilary. Entire city blocks would be leveled. On thing was for sure, if
>>>you let the insurgents use your proprty to launch an attack against the
>>>Americans, you only did it once. Entire towns became sensitive to the
>>>presence of any possible insurgent, as it could mean that their town
>>>would become a "third army memorial".
>>>
>>>Sounds like war is hell. Patton's method worked.
>>
>>Actually, what it sounds like is the same sort of bullpucky
>>people like to sling about regarding Pershing and his way
>>of dealing with Islamic troublemakers.
>>
>>Said story being a complete lie...
>>
>>You have any cites for Patton actually using the method you
>>claim he did?
>
>I made that mistake, I thought he knew what he was talking about.

Stu has a fascinating view of history, doesn't he? I'm torn between
ignoring him because he doesn't know what he's talking about or
continuing to poke at him to try to figure out where he's getting
this stuff...

>AFAIK there was no particular insurgent threat in Germany after WWII.

There was a considerable resistance, mainly Communist inspired;
but that was mostly manifested through saboutage and sneak attacks
than direct military action.

Although some Nazi units refusing to quit fighting until they
were hunted down and smashed, even after the war.

And criminal activity made things hot for allied occupation
forces, on occasion...

>What Patton is most know for is signing up "ex-" Nazis the get things
>organized.

Patton had a tendancy to do what he felt was necessary to accomplish
his goals, and damn conventional thinking or gentleman's agreements.

I've never heard of him deliberately violating the rules of war or
of peace, however.

FW

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:39:48 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:

>
>Their children were not allowed to go to school. Confederate flags

Corrected spelling -- American swastika.

> hung as a
>warning where Black people dare not tread. They were not allowed to vote,
>and were told they had to pass tests just to register to vote.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:44:39 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> If they decide to ignore
>terrorist training bases do we accept?

Of course not -- Bush has extended the Monroe Doctrine to
include the entire world as regards terrorism. Anyone who fails to
knuckle under to our defiition of terrorism or terrorist activities
lays themselves open to be smitten by our military.
and crushed into compliance.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:47:21 -0700, Stuart Grey
<stuart.grey@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:28:59 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , Stuart Grey
>> <stuart.grey@nospam.comcast.net> in
>> <T9mdnTyh48GtjTrfRVn-tg@comcast.com> wrote:

>
>No, I wouldn't say it is like the Geramn methods, Silberstein. I see
>that you would, however. Your disdain for Gen. Patton is noted.

Oh, God -- spare us from the notes. How terrible to be marked
down in their impotet little books.

>
>Why would we loose? Is something not tied down correctly? We woun't even
>lose.

Spelling bigots -- the scum of usenet.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In Re: What exactly is the US strategy with regard to IED's? on
Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:58:19 -0700, by Winston Smith, we read:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 07:54:11 GMT, "XTS" <xts@xyz.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, gunner, perhaps you sould read some history. When there is an
>>invasion, there is resitance.
>
>I've heard the statement that history shows the odds are against the
>country that starts a war. I leave it to the cite-masters to test
>this theory.

Wars of aggression are short term propositions. The second
or third generations of the losers invariably get even.

It is simpler to say that wars that we know of were effective in
the long run maybe 2 or 3 times and only then because of
total annihilation.



>> Ever heard of the French reistance, it's
>>historical gunner. How about the resistance by the Hungarians, and the
>>Poles in 1958 gunner. If Bush would bother to read, he woud have known his
>>armies would meet resitance, but by him, and rumsfelds own admission, they
>>did not figure on stiff reisitance.
>>
>>And since it's the restience that is making the devises that are blowing our
>>kids up, it was Bush, Rumsfeld who made the fatal flaw, but they are not the
>>fatalities, the fatalities are just kids.
>>
>>The Ceasers did not figure the resitance of a few horders of barbarians
>>either gunner. Did their empire last the mellenia they figured on, nope,
>>why, because of the resistance to their empire.
>>
>>So, gunner, you show the fatal flaw, and you and I can debate it, but since
>>you can't gunner, you are dismissed as another one sentence wonder, who
>>offers no rebuttal, only bullshit...gunner..lol...sure you are.

Archived from groups: alt.military,us.military.army,alt.politics,misc.survivalism,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Goth Loser" <goth__loser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118201158.972273.212110@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
: Is this like a war of attrition on the insurgents' caches of
: explosives? There seems to be an awful lot of folks driving around
: getting blown up and not even getting a shot off from their rifles. I
: mean it's one thing to volunteer for your country and another to be
: brave enough to face combat but at the very least wouldn't you want to
: squeeze a few rounds off in anger before coming home in pieces?
:

How different is this than the "torpedoes" (rive mines) used by the south
during the Civil War against the iron clads?

You also had insurgents in the form of the Younger brothers and the James
Brothers.