On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:58:59 -0500, John H. wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:34:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you believe
he is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location,
things are a total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

Yes. The first school is in the Shiite regions. The second is in the
Sunni regions. It's no different than red counties vs. blue counties
right in here in the good ol' U.S of A. The blue counties are analogous
to the Sunni regions.

Good! So, we've agreed that there are places which are not so happy and
shiny and peaceful.



2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside bombs?

Just like most politicians avoid visiting inner-city project housing for
fear of their own safety.

Good! That means Lieberman didn't see everything, or speak to people who had
stories which contradict the rosy picture. For instance, people whose male
family members had been taken away and killed in the middle of the night, by
the Iraqi police.

On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only 1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American Army has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority of our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training. He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure horse****.


edit the boo-boos.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]