Mark Browne wrote:

Reasonable armchair quarterback strategy. If you spend some time reading
about the Soviet experience in the area you may see some interesting
parallels with what is happening in Iraq now. We are in about the same place
in the Soviet timeline. In the first two years the losses were fairly light;
the number just about match what we are now seeing. It ended up just about
the way you are describing. Towards the end, the soviets did end up huddling
in their bases as the looses mounted. Nobody wanted to go out because it was
going so badly. They only came out to stage raids on the ever more brazen
resistance forces. Unfortunately, it helped the resistance forces because it
made the soldiers more predictable. The routes to and from the bases were
mined with tank busters. Gunships were shot from the skies as they tried to
fly above it all. In the end it was fairly common for the Mujahideen to
kidnap a solder, either from the base or on patrol, mutilate or kill him in
a most horrible way, and return the body for maximum terror effect. With any
luck at all (luck come in two flavors!) this could all be ours!

One item you are conveniently leaving out. In the case of the Soviets in
Afghanistan, the resistance fighters were being armed and assisted by us
(Which is part of the reason why we have a problem now). The resistance
fighters had almost unlimited arms and resources at their disposal.

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.


Dave

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles
and little not much else but rice.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists.
Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power
of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I
think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail,
with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing
sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings want
the USA to fail in this adventure.
2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale.
For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the former
Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we lean
on them hard enough on the Taliban thing.

Try a different argument - this dog won't hunt.

Mark Browne

Mark Browne wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists.
Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power
of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I
think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail,
with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing
sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings want
the USA to fail in this adventure.

Transactions like this should be easy to trace. However, the Saudis are
in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, some of the more fundamental
Islamics, hate the US for what it stands for. On the other hand, the US
is their biggest customer for their oil. As much as the loss of oil
would hurt us, the loss of our dollars would equally hurt the Saudis.


2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale.

A far different cry from a country which is more than willing to supply
arms gratis, simply because they have a political stake in the outcome
(and they have a large stockpile to pull from).

For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the former
Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we lean
on them hard enough on the Taliban thing.

Again, where the arms are coming from will be sporatic and expensive,
and should be tracable. If WE put pressure of the countries that supply
arms to terrorists, as well as blockade or heavily monitor the Iraqi
borders, the supply of arms will dry up.


Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Again, where the arms are coming from will be sporatic and expensive,
and should be tracable. If WE put pressure of the countries that supply
arms to terrorists, as well as blockade or heavily monitor the Iraqi
borders, the supply of arms will dry up.

Not mentioned much on the kiddie news shows you watch: There's an awful lot
of nuclear material that's gone missing from the former Soviet Union. Nobody
knows where it is. It was being monitored by people who hadn't been paid in
months, and who were, therefore, easily bought.

Even though public tv is a rats nest of liberal/socialist madness, you
should check the tv listings for what's on Nova each week. You might learn
something. And, listen to NPR each morning, instead of Bob & Sally's drive
time McDrivel.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Mark Browne wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:

In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the
terrorists.
Once
we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be
reduced to
throwing rocks.

Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the
power
of a
rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill.
I
think
this has been established in our not so distant past.

Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh
trail,
with
the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing
sandles
and little not much else but rice.

The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC
were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are
likely
equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the
curtain" supplying them the arms.

1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings
want
the USA to fail in this adventure.

Transactions like this should be easy to trace. However, the Saudis are
in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, some of the more fundamental
Islamics, hate the US for what it stands for. On the other hand, the US
is their biggest customer for their oil. As much as the loss of oil
would hurt us, the loss of our dollars would equally hurt the Saudis.

I did not say that they want the US to die, rightists have been floating
that strawman. They just want the US to stop meddling in their affairs.

2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale.

A far different cry from a country which is more than willing to supply
arms gratis, simply because they have a political stake in the outcome
(and they have a large stockpile to pull from).

So they have to pay for them. BFD. Buy some more gas so they have more money
to work with. Besides, there is plenty of drugs being grown in Afghanistan
now - to they have plenty of narco-dollars to work with. Keep the drugs
illegal so that the price stays high and the trade is underground.

For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the
former
Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we
lean
on them hard enough on the Taliban thing.

Again, where the arms are coming from will be sporadic and expensive,
and should be tracable. If WE put pressure of the countries that supply
arms to terrorists, as well as blockade or heavily monitor the Iraqi
borders, the supply of arms will dry up.

Are you living on a different planet than me? If you got money, you can get
guns.

For the kind of pressure you are describing to have any meaning, the
pipelines would have to dry up at the producers, and all the weapons would
have to get "used up". This would take many years. In the mean time, we have
lots of soldiers getting killed in Iraq now!

In any case, there are plenty of weapon to kill American soldiers floating
around the world now.

Mark Browne