🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
news:12800849.uB2sIXJOJW@news.verizon.net...
> AUK Registrar wrote:
>
> > In <8340510.mutZkWESkT@news.verizon.net>, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>You're lying through your teeth.  The embedded reporters were censored
by
> >>the military, and the only reason why we know anything at all about
> >>conditions in Fallujah is that they have been reported by wounded
American
> >>soldiers, and my an aid mission.
> >>
> >>OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER WAS AN OVERWHELMING MISTAKE IN FALLUJAH.  THERE
> >>WERE, BY THE BEST ESTIMATES OF THE US DOD, SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
> >>OF 80,000 CIVILIANS IN FALLUJAH, AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS SUBJECTED TO
THE
> >>MOST INTENSE AND SUSTAINED BOMBARDMENT IN THE HISTORY OF WAR, WITH THE
> >>EXCEPTION
> >>OF THE DROPPING OF NUCLEAR ARMANMAENTS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAKASAKI.  IT IS
> >>BEING PERCIEVED AS AN OVERHELMING SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS, BY
THE
> >>ENTIRE PLANET, BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.
> >>
> >>DON'T LIE TO ME, YOU WITLESS THUG.  YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WENT ON OVER
> >>THERE, AND I DESPISE YOU WITH EVERY ATOM OF MY BODY FOR BEING A COWARDLY
> >>LIAR ABOUT IT.
> >
> > Just when it starts getting dull around here a fresh nutjob strolls in
to
> > liven things up. Not only that, but he fires up Daryl The Reseller for
> > more fun and games.
> >
> > And we didn't even have to change the bait.
> >
> > Life is good.
>
>
> Hello?  Who asked you to drool?  Stick your head back in the sand please.
> You are a waste of bandwidth.

He's just a cheap troll as are all the 404thk00ks.

BTW, I studied Buddism decades ago and found some of the beliefs refreshing
although I can't accept nor practice it as a whole.  Maybe we should get
into a discussion of Buddism in comparision with the old and new Testament.
That should drive the 404thk00ks completely crazy since they want to remove
God from anything connected with a Newsgroup.

DeadMeat wrote:

> 
> BTW, I studied Buddism decades ago and found some of the beliefs
> refreshing although I can't accept nor practice it as a whole.��Maybe�we
> should�get into a discussion of Buddism in comparision with the old and
> new Testament. That should drive the 404thk00ks completely crazy since
> they want to remove God from anything connected with a Newsgroup.

I'm not actually into comparing Buddhism and Theism.  The usual result of
that is flame wars, by people who practice neither thing.  I think you have
to choose, if you're going to have a religious or spiritual alignment, and
then practice what you choose, instead of wasting your life differing with
people who have made another choice.

Buddhism isn't evangelical.  We think it's OK for people to have other
beliefs.  We're definitely pro-choice, in every area.  Buddhism in America
is involved with America's Enlightenment tradition, going all the way back
to the Trancendentalists, and to some of the Founding Liberals, such as
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Doing a Google on "404th", since this means nothing to me, I came up with a
number of functioning military units that have this as part of their name,
but they didn't seem to click.  Then, using the "groups" option, I came up
with this, let us say, *interesting* piece of dialogue, which seems to
involve several of the people on this thread. This was posted to us.config
and us.military.army.


______________________________________________________________________

"Henrietta K Thomas" <hkt69@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sfo4kvs2mrfdbf48avvouruu0siflh6dmr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:05:13 -0500, RTO Trainer <bill.white@us.army.mil>
> wrote, in us.config:
>
> <...>
>
> >Anyone who posts in UMA is 404, so Igor is too.
>
> That's not what Snark says.
>
Actually that is very close to what I've said.  In a way RTO
Trainer is right too.  In that you enter the 404th every
time you post to uma and therefore are *in* the 404th Bar
and Grill.  Membership in the 404th as opposed to simply
being in the 404th  is conferred on people who have made
significant contributions to the betterment of uma.
But, then we've never really given it a lot of fuss bother
and worry before since it didn't really matter to anyone
before a member of the 404th made it an issue.

> >If this has been you opinion all along, why hide it?  At least then I
> >might have had a true picture of the pitch of the terrain.
>
> I have never 'hid' my opinion of the 404.
>

LOL!  Exactly who are the 404th in your mind?

> >So I've just been wasting my time and the time of all my friends who
> >thought we might actually be going to accomplish something here.
>
> You have accomplished a great deal, just not as much
> as you thought you would.
>
Except he's a member of the 404th so if you weren't going to
let anyone from the 404th complete this task in a manner
suitable and reasonable to the uma posters then what exactly
has been accomplished?

> >How long did you plan to wait to pull the rug out?
>
> I was hoping not to have to pull any rug out, but to help
> you write an acceptable charter we could all live with.
>
Who exactly is we?

> >Eddie:  I owe you, big time, for eliciting this response from HKT.
>
> You should owe me, instead, for taking the bait.
>
Yes  Ma'am.  You sure showed us Ma'am.  Yes, thank you
Ma'am.  Three bags full, Ma'am.

The writing on the wall, Ma'am?  BOHICA means Basic
Organizational High Intensity Clerical Activity, Ma'am.   We
feel it describes the real work of us.config Ma'am.

Snark

_______________________________________________________



My server doesn't carry us.config, but I assume it is for the purpose of
setting up groups in the us. hierarchy.  So did a 404th Usenet group
happen?   Snark is already not my favorite civilian.  He has an attitude,
and he just doesn't understand the sanctity of the five characters "404th",
you know what I mean?  Perhaps the whole project got terminally BOTHICA'd.

It's a lot easier to set up groups in the alt. hierarchy, and if you want to
control it, you make it a moderated group.

Lurking on u.m.a, which I never intend to post to, there seems to be some
connection of this then nebulous Usenet "404th" entity to the AF portal,
and therefore, one suspects, to the 404th {insert some AF unit] of WWII
fame, with its pink elephant insignia, no?

-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:18:49 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:


>I've noticed.  Then why pray tell, has the use of overwhelming firepower
>resulted in a condition of attrition warfare throughout the Sunni Triangle,
>if not that it is Bad Doctrine?  Hmmmmmmmm?

If you do not know what attrition warfare is - just say so.

So far the only impression I get is that you have no clue about the
situation in Iraq, Falluja or military affairs in general.


--

"Saddam was found cowering in his little hole
in the ground. Supposedly, his goal was to remain
in hiding until all the shooting stopped. Well,
hey, it worked for the French."  Jay Leno

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:38:51 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:


>
>Look, these guys are highly trained war machines.  Ask them.  They'll tell
>you.  They're not supposed to have opinions like civilians like me. 
>They're supposed to have a set of instant, and often lethal, reactions,
>hard-wired into the cortex of their brains, according to a set of
>perceptual grids called Doctrine.

I take it you know nothing about the people who wear the uniform.

BTW, looks like you do not know what 'Doctrine' is either.



--

"Saddam was found cowering in his little hole
in the ground. Supposedly, his goal was to remain
in hiding until all the shooting stopped. Well,
hey, it worked for the French."  Jay Leno

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:12:22 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:


>> Just when it starts getting dull around here a fresh nutjob strolls in to
>> liven things up. Not only that, but he fires up Daryl The Reseller for
>> more fun and games.
>> 
>> And we didn't even have to change the bait.
>> 
>> Life is good.
>
>
>Hello?  Who asked you to drool?  Stick your head back in the sand please. 
>You are a waste of bandwidth.

Man what a lame comeback.

Even deadmeat can do better than that.



--

"Saddam was found cowering in his little hole
in the ground. Supposedly, his goal was to remain
in hiding until all the shooting stopped. Well,
hey, it worked for the French."  Jay Leno

"ThomasT" <mauicop@hawaii-politics.com> wrote in message 
news:cnb2il$kop$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:14:29 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>It inevitably results in civilian casualties, and the US has just
>>perpetrated a major humanitariian disaster, if not genocide in al Fallujah,
>>by means of this perfectly atrocious and dysfunctional doctrine.
>
> And what makes you a combat expert Buddha-boy??  How many combat areas
> have you served in?  How many times, and where, have you been under
> fire??  None?  In other words, you don't know diddly about what you're
> blathering on about??  That's what we thought.
>
> Every military expert/strategist since Sun Tzu, to Powell and
> Schwarzkopf advocate such a strategy.  In fact, in modern times it's
> become so entwined with the General it's often referred to the
> "Schwarzkopf Doctrine".  Overwhelming force was utilized both in the
> Balkans and during Iraq War I, with extremely successful results.
> And, notwithstanding the amount of resistance, the current combat in
> Iraq has been very successful.  The Army now owns Fallujah, and
> operations in Mosul are mopping up the last of the guerillas.
>
> The media has mis-stated the extent of collateral damage and civilian
> casualties from day one.  Sunni rebels were sniping at Shiite
> civilians, not to mention Iraqi Police patrols and American troops in
> the Fallujah area for months.  We should just look the other way and
> ignore it??
>
> It's a good thing Krishna-boy, that nancy-boy morons like you have no
> authority over military policy.  Stick with begging for quarters at
> the airport, and leave war to real men.
>
> "If we want to demoralize the population of Iraq and
> sap their will to fight, we ought to show them
> videotapes of the South Bronx, Detroit City and the
> West Side of Chicago.  Take a look, you Iraqis--this
> is what we do to our own cities in peacetime.  Just
> think what we're going to do to yours in a war."
>    ~ P.J. O'Rourke (1947-    )
>      _Give War a Chance_ [1992],
>      "Gulf Diary: Thursday, February 14, Dhahran"
>

"None of the tragedies that happened after the US withdrawal from Southeast 
Asia should have come as a surprise. But they did to those of us in the 
antiwar movement because we had blinded ourselves to any reality.

"Will today's current peace protestors eventually feel as foolish as I do? I 
think even more so. "
 ~ Gerald Posner, _Was I That Stupid?_,
 ~ http://www.accessnorthgeorgia.com/news/newfullstory.asp?ID=69541
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

"AUK Registrar" <cjiii@mxyzptlk.net> wrote in message 
news:gpeip01u929t1jsujkkftna8sb20k2surl@4ax.com...
> In <8340510.mutZkWESkT@news.verizon.net>, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
>
>>You're lying through your teeth.  The embedded reporters were censored by
>>the military, and the only reason why we know anything at all about
>>conditions in Fallujah is that they have been reported by wounded American
>>soldiers, and my an aid mission.
>>
>>OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER WAS AN OVERWHELMING MISTAKE IN FALLUJAH.  THERE 
>>WERE,
>>BY THE BEST ESTIMATES OF THE US DOD, SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF
>>80,000 CIVILIANS IN FALLUJAH, AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS SUBJECTED TO THE MOST
>>INTENSE AND SUSTAINED BOMBARDMENT IN THE HISTORY OF WAR, WITH THE EXCEPTION
>>OF THE DROPPING OF NUCLEAR ARMANMAENTS ON HIROSHIMA AND NAKASAKI.  IT IS
>>BEING PERCIEVED AS AN OVERHELMING SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS, BY THE
>>ENTIRE PLANET, BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.
>>
>>DON'T LIE TO ME, YOU WITLESS THUG.  YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WENT ON OVER
>>THERE, AND I DESPISE YOU WITH EVERY ATOM OF MY BODY FOR BEING A COWARDLY
>>LIAR ABOUT IT.
>
> Just when it starts getting dull around here a fresh nutjob strolls in to
> liven things up. Not only that, but he fires up Daryl The Reseller for more
> fun and games.
>
> And we didn't even have to change the bait.
>
> Life is good.
>

"He may look like an idiot, and he may sound like an idiot, but don't let him 
fool you.  He really is an idiot."
 ~ Groucho Marx
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:cnbu1g$p0g$1@news.chatlink.com...
> "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> news:7439788.zTe4XDpx89@news.verizon.net...
>>
>> Give it up rightards.  You're just lying about this.  That's the only
> thing
>> going on here.
>
> You seem to be quite left.  But the ones you are ragging on are not Right
> Wing at all.  They are Arrogant and believe only they know what is 
> happening
> and the reasons why.  This is neither a left or a right thing.  It is a
> stupid thing though to accept it.
>

"A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool 
trusts either of them."
 ~ P. J. O'Rourke, _Parliament of Whores_
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

"Colin Campbell" <activated95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in 
message news:f5ejp0t9cveoei9tc9jt4a6bohmpcbttl8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:12:22 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
>>
>>Hello?  Who asked you to drool?  Stick your head back in the sand please.
>>You are a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Man what a lame comeback.
>
> Even deadmeat can do better than that.
>

And you sound envious because you are a pale shadow compared to DeadMeat. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

remove underwear stood in a field of horny clues, smeared himself with clue
musk, sang the clue summoning song, did the clue mating dance, and wrote:

> 
> If you do not know what attrition warfare is - just say so.
> 

It's what the Viet Cong did to us in Viet Nam, and it's what the Iraqi
insurgents are doing to us in Iraq.


-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

remove underscore wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:38:51 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Look, these guys are highly trained war machines.  Ask them.  They'll tell
>>you.  They're not supposed to have opinions like civilians like me.
>>They're supposed to have a set of instant, and often lethal, reactions,
>>hard-wired into the cortex of their brains, according to a set of
>>perceptual grids called Doctrine.
> 
> I take it you know nothing about the people who wear the uniform.
> 
> BTW, looks like you do not know what 'Doctrine' is either.
> 

OK, you're on, Doc.  What's doctrine?

-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

alohacyberian wrote:

> "Colin Campbell" <activated95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
> message news:f5ejp0t9cveoei9tc9jt4a6bohmpcbttl8@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:12:22 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hello?  Who asked you to drool?  Stick your head back in the sand please.
>>>You are a waste of bandwidth.
>>
>> Man what a lame comeback.
>>
>> Even deadmeat can do better than that.
>>
> 
> And you sound envious because you are a pale shadow compared to DeadMeat.
> KM

Well, look what the tide washed in.  I agree.  He's a pale shadow, and
DeadMeat is a troll.  What's your excuse for being OT?


-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

alohacyberian wrote:

> 
> "None of the tragedies that happened after the US withdrawal from
> Southeast Asia should have come as a surprise. But they did to those of us
> in the antiwar movement because we had blinded ourselves to any reality.
> 

Whine, whine, whine.  The problems of SE Asia, real or imagined, are not our
fault.  People get the governments they deserve.

I'm not part of an anti-war movement, and never have been.  I supported the
president going into this war.  But I agree with the entire planet, with
the exception of a handful of blind rightist American imperialists, in
condemning the vicious, unnecessary, unjust, corrupt, thoroughly inhumane,
diplomatically defunct, and blatantly stupid piece of strategy that the war
in Iraq has become.



-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

Thomas� wrote:

<irresponsible right-wing drivel>

Thomas, you're an idiot. 



-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

Thomas� wrote:

> I�would�say�that�I'm�getting�a
> strong whiff of trolling net-kook from ol' Krishna-boy here, but that
> would be a gross understatement of the obvious.


Wrong.  Thomas, your ass is on fire.  Find a dog to piss on it quick.


-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> DeadMeat wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is.��That's�where�a�bomb�is
> > dropped on a house housing your enemy.��Or�where�you�have�the�troops�come
> > in�behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd, 4th, and
> > fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.��Hell,�kid,�it's
> > done�all�the time and it saves lives on the US side.��If�you�overkill��it
> > then�it's�still dead and you lost NO people in the first place.��If�you
> > underkill�it�your ground troops are going to get some pretty nasty
> > surprises.
> > 
> 
> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the other
> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war blogs,
> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?

Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"

I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
doctrine.

Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
of the term "doctrine."

RTO Trainer wrote:

> Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
>> DeadMeat wrote:
>> 
>> > 
>> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is.��That's�where�a�bomb�is
>> > dropped on a house housing your enemy.��Or�where�you�have�the�troops
>> > come in�behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd,
>> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.�
>> > Hell,�kid,�it's done�all�the time and it saves lives on the US side.�
>> > If�you�overkill��it then�it's�still dead and you lost NO people in the
>> > first place.��If�you underkill�it�your ground troops are going to get
>> > some pretty nasty surprises.
>> > 
>> 
>> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the other
>> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war blogs,
>> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> 
> Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"

I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> 
> I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> doctrine.
> 
> Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
> of the term "doctrine."

We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's quite
honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine. 
Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce about
doctrine.  I thought wrong.

I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite indirect,
but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam era,
watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong.  The
intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result of
that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.

The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely destroy
what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave risk
for another 9/ll at home.

-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
news:1820436.zUTYVc0WRB@news.verizon.net...
> DeadMeat wrote:
>
> >
> > "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > news:1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net...
> >> DeadMeat wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb is
> >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the troops
> >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd,
> >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
Hell,
> >> > kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US side. If you
> >> > overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in the first
> >> > place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to get some
> >> > pretty nasty surprises.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the other
> >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war blogs,
> >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> >
> > Easy answer.  They either repeat what they are told while on base or
they
> > just make it up as they go.
>
>
> Right.  So why get your shorts in a bunch about doctrine at all, whatever
it
> was trying to be, if you're just going to throw it out the window, as soon
> as you get into combat?

It's not being thrown out.  The Military was practicing the Doctrine
starting in 1976 hoping that congress or the prez wouldn't muck up the next
one.  It's what we wanted to do in Nam but couldn't.

The change wasn't in the Army doctine as much as in the Air Force, Navy and
Marine.  And the biggest change was the way that Overwhelming Force was to
be used.  It was used quite affectively in just last 8 days.  Our losses
would have been much higher.

>
>
> > Either way, their's is just an opinion just
> > like yours is.
>
>
> Look, these guys are highly trained war machines.  Ask them.  They'll tell
> you.  They're not supposed to have opinions like civilians like me.
> They're supposed to have a set of instant, and often lethal, reactions,
> hard-wired into the cortex of their brains, according to a set of
> perceptual grids called Doctrine.

And then you have civilians killed at such a rate that even the shop keepers
bear arms against you.  Not a good thing.  Foxnews reported a shooting that
may be along the lines you suggest.  I don't know of a single Military
Person with more than 4 years that doesn't find the film alarming.  The US
Troops have to think these days otherwise, we are no better than the
Insurgents/Terrorists.


>
>
> > Not a single one of them will ever be involved in
> > Overwhelming Force.
>
>
> Hello?  Doctrine is Doctrine.  If you're in the military you recieve it.
If
> you didn't, you'd be dead.

No, there are many doctrines.  The Ground Pounder gets a different doctine
than the guy dropping that 2000lb bomb.  The Grunt has trouble doing
overwhelming force since he's on a one to one basis.  The Jet Jockey pickles
his load, follows it in with his sights and then goes home.  Very clean,
very anticeptic for him but more devistating than 200 ground pounders.  The
closest thing from the Army would have to a heavy, real heavy Artillery
barrage which also fits securely in the Overwhelming Force category.


>
>
> > That's normally left, these days, to the Air Force,
> > Navy or Marines who have the Air and Sea Power on hand.  They might (not
> > likely with these guinuses) be involved in moving in aftewards to either
> > sweep up or clean the place up of the last vestages of resistance.
>
>
> Where, oh where have you BEEN for the last fifty years?

Let's see, I retired from the AF in 1990 where I was employed in SAC with
the REAL Overwhelming Force Weapons.


>
>
> > Don't
> > get me wrong, the clean up can be quite deadly and should be avoided
> > whenever possible.
>
>
> Which is the primary place where the whole Doctrine breaks down.  "If you
> break it, you then have to fix it".  (Powell's famous 'pottery shed
> principle')  And to fix it, the bombardment has to cease.  And then guess
> who is still there?  Even if you've succeeded in bombing every existing
> insurgent at the time of the attack to smithereens, that very bombardment,
> in and of itself, just made fresh insurents out of all the male relatives
> of every one you killed.

It's not broke. It was broke until about 8 days ago.  You have to use it
when you need it.  But the troops have been trying to play Policemen with a
bunch of Guirrilla fighters.  You have to root them out by killing them.

>
>
> Bad Doctrine!  Bad, bad, bad!

I disagree.  I have seen bad doctrines. I've lived bad doctrines and the
current (in the last 8 days) is nowhere near as bad as we once had.


>
>
> > While the use of Overpowering or Overwhelming force is
> > being used, it's the enemy that normally dies.  But during the cleanup,
> > you have to send in your own troops and that is never anticeptic.
>
>
> Let alone fresh outbreaks of civil disorder throughout the Sunni triangle.
> The enemy didn't die in Fallujah.  Largly, he escaped.  Who died was
> innocent civilians.
>
> BAD DOCTRINE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

About 1600 of them didn't escape.  That's 1600 less to worry about.  Many
moved to Mosul.  Guess what kicked off in the last couple of days?  Mosul is
getting the same treatment.

"Colin Campbell" <activated95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:skdjp0pr5k35bfu2edelmdfi6cr91obhc4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:18:49 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I've noticed.  Then why pray tell, has the use of overwhelming firepower
> >resulted in a condition of attrition warfare throughout the Sunni
Triangle,
> >if not that it is Bad Doctrine?  Hmmmmmmmm?
>
> If you do not know what attrition warfare is - just say so.
>
> So far the only impression I get is that you have no clue about the
> situation in Iraq, Falluja or military affairs in general.

Guess I need to explain it to him then since you are SO important that you
don't feel the need.  Condesending gets troops killed.

"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
news:1150788.47SoKA9ajK@news.verizon.net...
> remove underscore wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:47:57 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
> >
> >>DeadMeat wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb is
> >>> dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the troops
> >>> come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd,
4th,
> >>> and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away. Hell,
kid,
> >>> it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US side. If you
> >>> overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in the first
> >>> place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to get some
> >>> pretty nasty surprises.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the other
> >>military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war blogs,
> >>that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> >
> > Because this is an example of attrition warfare.  Something that is
> > avoided by military professionals.
> >
>
> I've noticed.  Then why pray tell, has the use of overwhelming firepower
> resulted in a condition of attrition warfare throughout the Sunni
Triangle,
> if not that it is Bad Doctrine?  Hmmmmmmmm?
>
> (In the Pacific Theatre, we call it Bad Rice, FYI)
>
> Engage brain before flaunting incredible stupidity, and (please forgive me
> for descending to the vernacular, it SO disgusts me, but I do it):

Attrition is where there are a finite number of enemy.  You kill them and
then there are none.  You kill them faster than they can regenerate.  At
some point, there becomes a diminishing returns.  At that point, the
uprising is pretty well spent.

It's a good doctrine but hasn't worked because the troops have not been able
to practice it in the areas that the Insurgents kept running to hide.  You
HAVE to take it home to them in order for it to work.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:37:09 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:

>remove underwear stood in a field of horny clues, smeared himself with clue
>musk, sang the clue summoning song, did the clue mating dance, and wrote:
>
>> 
>> If you do not know what attrition warfare is - just say so.
>> 
>
>It's what the Viet Cong did to us in Viet Nam, and it's what the Iraqi
>insurgents are doing to us in Iraq.

Look - you have already convinced me that you do not know what
attrition warfare is.  Why do you persist in demonstrating your
ignorance to people who have had formal training?

BTW, if you think the enemy is using attrition warfare on us - a ~0.5%
casualty rate is evidence that they are _not_ attriting us.




--

"Saddam was found cowering in his little hole
in the ground. Supposedly, his goal was to remain
in hiding until all the shooting stopped. Well,
hey, it worked for the French."  Jay Leno

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:40:57 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:


>> BTW, looks like you do not know what 'Doctrine' is either.
>> 
>
>OK, you're on, Doc.  What's doctrine?

In a military context - doctrine is an organized set of standards and
procedures that allow a large and diverse organization to function
cooperatively to achieve a common goal.

By using a common doctrine organizations can plan for their part in an
operation because they know what to expect for the units they are
adjacent to, support or are supported by.

For example the '9-line medevac' is a doctrinal method used to request
medical evacuation of personnel.  Since doctrine requires the
hospital, ambulance unit and the unit requesting assistance to process
the information in a pre-determined template - there is less of a
likelihood of confusion.



--

"Saddam was found cowering in his little hole
in the ground. Supposedly, his goal was to remain
in hiding until all the shooting stopped. Well,
hey, it worked for the French."  Jay Leno

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<cneiou$4s9$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> news:7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net...
> > RTO Trainer wrote:
> >
> > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb is
> > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the troops
> > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd,
> > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
> > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US side.
> > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in the
> > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to get
> > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the other
> > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war blogs,
> > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > >
> > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> >
> > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > >
> > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > doctrine.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
> > > of the term "doctrine."
> >
> > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's quite
> > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine.
> > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce about
> > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> >
> > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
>  indirect,
> > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam era,
> > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong.  The
> > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result of
> > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> >
> > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
>  destroy
> > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave risk
> > for another 9/ll at home.
> 
> I spent some time above the Ho Trail shelling anything that moved.  We used
> Overwhelming Firepower once they removed the stupid rules and we got a
> President that was no longer being lied to and didn't try to micromanage
> each every round fired. Sounds to me like you were there 1968 at the latest.
> I didn't show up until 1969 and it wasn't until 1970 that the rules were all
> but removed from us where we could shell anything that moved.  20mm Vulcans
> make wonderful Elephant guns.
> 
> The doctrine is much the same as Nam was from 1970 to 1974 in more ways than
> the kids realize.  The term "Win their Hearts and Minds" was used back then
> as well.  Had it not been for Pres Ford, the South might still be a seperate
> nation from the North.

Overwhelming Firepower is not *current* doctrine.

1969 to 1974 is not *current.*

"RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:ed856011.0411170857.11448dab@posting.google.com...
> Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
news:<7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net>...
> > RTO Trainer wrote:
> >
> > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb is
> > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the troops
> > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd,
> > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
> > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US
side.
> > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in
the
> > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to
get
> > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the
other
> > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war
blogs,
> > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > >
> > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> >
> > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > >
> > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > doctrine.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
> > > of the term "doctrine."
> >
> > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's
quite
> > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine.
> > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce
about
> > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> >
>
> My Signal Corps experience does not make me a expert on doctrine.
> Being a more than averagely curiousl and studious soldier, though
> makes ne better informed than most in the same position though.  I've
> read FM 3-0 which defines and describes current doctrine.
>
> I didn't reference a blog.
>
> > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
indirect,
> > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam era,
> > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong.
The
> > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result of
> > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> >
> > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
destroy
> > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave
risk
> > for another 9/ll at home.
>
> Overwhelming Firepower is not current doctrine.

It's not part of any doctrine.  It's there as a tool to be used when
necessary.  One does not use it when it's not necessary as it would cause
unnecessary damage.  But to not use it when it IS necessary would be against
any doctrine that the US has had since 1976 now that PRez Johnson isn't
there to micro manage and Westmoreland isnt' there to lie to him in the
first place.

"alohacyberian" <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote in message
news:uxFmd.920878$Gx4.877918@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Colin Campbell" <activated95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
> message news:dsrkp05cupsjfqm54d30cm6c4414ahhbpk@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:31:07 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> > <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:
> >>"Colin Campbell" <activated95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> >>message news:f5ejp0t9cveoei9tc9jt4a6bohmpcbttl8@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:12:22 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>Hello?  Who asked you to drool?  Stick your head back in the sand
please.
> >>>>You are a waste of bandwidth.
> >>>
> >>> Man what a lame comeback.
> >>>
> >>> Even deadmeat can do better than that.
> >>
> >>And you sound envious because you are a pale shadow compared to
DeadMeat.
> >>KM
> >
> > Go and Google Darryl Hunt, Letoured, 'admin' and deadmeat.  (They are
> > all the same person - the stupidity award was retired in his honor
> > years ago.
> >
>
> Yeah, God knows, if it's on the Internet, it's accurate. KM

What the 404thk00ks are doing is to say that since they use a miriad of
Socks to appear to be larger and more important than they really are that
any people that disagrees with them must also be doing this.   No wonder not
one single one of them is in the Regular Army and has to find their way in
through Guard and Reserve cycles.

I tried to get regular army to post in here but they all declined. As one
person stated, "They eat their own".

DeadMeat wrote:

> 
> I tried to get regular army to post in here but they all declined. As one
> person stated, "They eat their own".



Well, let's face it Daryl, that's the only reason you're still here.



-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

Dharmananda wrote:

> DeadMeat wrote:
> 
> 
>>I tried to get regular army to post in here but they all declined. As one
>>person stated, "They eat their own".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's face it Daryl, that's the only reason you're still here.
> 
> 
> 

No one wanted to eat him? ...

- nilita ("ptuieeeee....")

"RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:ed856011.0411171112.690ca95b@posting.google.com...
> "DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<cneiou$4s9$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> > "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > news:7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net...
> > > RTO Trainer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb
is
> > > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the
troops
> > > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor,
3rd,
> > > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
> > > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US
side.
> > > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in
the
> > > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to
get
> > > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the
other
> > > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war
blogs,
> > > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > > >
> > > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> > >
> > > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > > >
> > > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > > doctrine.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different
conceptions
> > > > of the term "doctrine."
> > >
> > > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's
quite
> > > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine.
> > > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce
about
> > > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> > >
> > > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
> >  indirect,
> > > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam
era,
> > > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong.
The
> > > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result
of
> > > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> > >
> > > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
> >  destroy
> > > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave
risk
> > > for another 9/ll at home.
> >
> > I spent some time above the Ho Trail shelling anything that moved.  We
used
> > Overwhelming Firepower once they removed the stupid rules and we got a
> > President that was no longer being lied to and didn't try to micromanage
> > each every round fired. Sounds to me like you were there 1968 at the
latest.
> > I didn't show up until 1969 and it wasn't until 1970 that the rules were
all
> > but removed from us where we could shell anything that moved.  20mm
Vulcans
> > make wonderful Elephant guns.
> >
> > The doctrine is much the same as Nam was from 1970 to 1974 in more ways
than
> > the kids realize.  The term "Win their Hearts and Minds" was used back
then
> > as well.  Had it not been for Pres Ford, the South might still be a
seperate
> > nation from the North.
>
> Overwhelming Firepower is not *current* doctrine.
>
> 1969 to 1974 is not *current.*

LOL, it's used whenver possible these days.  When the 101st was backed up
against an Iraqi Republican Guard that was well trained, manned and supplied
right outside of Bagdad, ALL the Apaches were at least damaged and one was
lost.  The 101st showed the virtues of thinking when they backed off and
called in the Navy and Air Force who bombed them back into the BC.  Then the
101st reentered.  That was a prime example of using Overwhelming Firepower.
There are tons and tons of examples of it being used when necessary even in
the Mosul and Fallaha (sp) invasion.  Without the threat of it, more enemy
would stay and fight house to house.  With it, they know if they emass in a
house, the house gets completely leveled.

1.  If that isn't Overwhelming Firepower then nothing is short of Hiroshima

2.    And that is written into the current doctrine

3.    It helps keep casualties down.

I guess you aren't too worried about #3 sitting that far from the battle.
But I am quite sure there is some troops crouched behind that Cement Road
Divider that has it on the forefront of their thoughts.  And the Enemy is
certainly thinking about it as well.

RTO Trainer wrote:

> 
> Overwhelming Firepower is not current doctrine.
> 
> 1969 to 1974 is not current.



OK, then what do you call the doctrine by which the attack on Fallujah was
fought?


-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

RTO Trainer wrote:

>> > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
>> > of the term "doctrine."
>> 
>> We probably do.��And�you're�in�the�signal�corps,�no?��I�think�that's
>> quite honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on
>> doctrine. Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a
>> refernce about doctrine.��I�thought�wrong.
>> 
> 
> My Signal Corps experience does not make me a expert on doctrine.
> Being a more than averagely curiousl and studious soldier, though
> makes ne better informed than most in the same position though.��I've
> read FM 3-0 which defines and describes current doctrine.
> 

OK, then, it is clear to me that if current doctrine is what led to the
wholesale slaughter and destruction in Fallujah, then current doctrine is
bad doctrine.  

I think there's a limit to the quibbling about words that you can do over
100 body bags, this month alone.

-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

"la n." <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CwTmd.164407$df2.33605@edtnps89...
> Dharmananda wrote:
>
> > DeadMeat wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I tried to get regular army to post in here but they all declined. As
one
> >>person stated, "They eat their own".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well, let's face it Daryl, that's the only reason you're still here.
> >
> >
> >
>
> No one wanted to eat him? ...
>
> - nilita ("ptuieeeee....")

Damn, why should the Right Wingers fight their own battles when they can
conn the left wingers to do it for them.

"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message 
news:3023854.8FpYdq4y2x@news.verizon.net...
> alohacyberian wrote:
>> "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
>> news:1970314.0QyoEejvA6@news.verizon.net...
>>> ThomasT wrote:
>>>> I would say that I'm getting a
>>>> strong whiff of trolling net-kook from ol' Krishna-boy here, but that
>>>> would be a gross understatement of the obvious.
>>>
>>> Wrong.  Thomas, your ass is on fire.  Find a dog to piss on it quick.
>>
>> In other words you cannot refute Thomas' words. So what else is new? KM
>
> There is no refutation for blind hatred, other than to call it what it is.
>

Once again you have demonstrated that you cannot rebut his words, if you 
could have done so, you would have. So, other than yourself, who do you think 
you're foolin'? KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

"ThomasT" <mauicop@hawaii-politics.com> wrote in message 
news:cngov9$2gt$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:15:55 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:
>>"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
>>news:1970314.0QyoEejvA6@news.verizon.net...
>>> ThomasT wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would say that I'm getting a
>>>> strong whiff of trolling net-kook from ol' Krishna-boy here, but that
>>>> would be a gross understatement of the obvious.
>>>
>>> Wrong.  Thomas, your ass is on fire.  Find a dog to piss on it quick.
>>
>>In other words you cannot refute Thomas' words. So what else is new? KM
>
> Bingo!!  Nothing new here.  Just another Bush-bashing America-hater
> who thinks he's an expert on war strategy and combat tactics.
> His obvious inability to comprehend even the most basic concepts of an
> admittedly complex area of opinion is startlingly apparent.  As usual
> with these troll-tards, his total cluelessness at how utterly bereft
> of relevant facts he is, combined with his blowhard demeanor.... is
> fairly hilarious!
>
> I'm thinking of preparing a possible companion volume to the "Official
> Leftwing Liberals Handbook".  How does the "Official Clueless Net-Kook
> Handbook" sound??  Both of us qualify for advanced K.D. degrees.
> [Doctorate of Kookology]. It would cover the rest of the
> run-of-the-mill Usenet flotsam i.e. regular net-kooks, nancy-boys,
> dope-heads, troll-tards etc.  What do ya' think??  How does Dr. Keith
> sound?  ;-)
>

LOL! Well, you have to bear in mind that most websites are limited to 10 to 
100 megabytes and I don't see how you could possibly cover all that 
information in less than 100 gigabytes! ;-). KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

e"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message 
news:1827657.sRsJv44Hk1@news.verizon.net...
> alohacyberian wrote:
>> In other words, you cannot rebut Thomas' position and resort to the
>> hallmark of Leftwing Liberals, childing name-calling and personal slurs
>> which is what passes for "debate" among Leftwing Liberals.
>
> What is Thomas 'polition' actually, other than he thinks I'm a Hare 
> Krishna?
>

Uh, it doesn't much matter what Thomas' position might be; what matters is 
that you have not and apparently cannot refute his arguments. If you cannot 
support your own positions or rebut his stances, silence is the indicated 
solution. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:cnh1i9$6vo$1@news.chatlink.com...
> "RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:ed856011.0411171112.690ca95b@posting.google.com...
>>
>> Overwhelming Firepower is not *current* doctrine.
>>
>> 1969 to 1974 is not *current.*
>
> LOL, it's used whenver possible these days.  When the 101st was backed up
> against an Iraqi Republican Guard that was well trained, manned and 
> supplied
> right outside of Bagdad, ALL the Apaches were at least damaged and one was
> lost.  The 101st showed the virtues of thinking when they backed off and
> called in the Navy and Air Force who bombed them back into the BC.  Then 
> the
> 101st reentered.  That was a prime example of using Overwhelming Firepower.
> There are tons and tons of examples of it being used when necessary even in
> the Mosul and Fallaha (sp) invasion.  Without the threat of it, more enemy
> would stay and fight house to house.  With it, they know if they emass in a
> house, the house gets completely leveled.
>
> 1.  If that isn't Overwhelming Firepower then nothing is short of Hiroshima
>
> 2.    And that is written into the current doctrine
>
> 3.    It helps keep casualties down.
>
> I guess you aren't too worried about #3 sitting that far from the battle.
> But I am quite sure there is some troops crouched behind that Cement Road
> Divider that has it on the forefront of their thoughts.  And the Enemy is
> certainly thinking about it as well.
>

And when you get down to brass tacks, that's all that counts, isn't it? All 
the rest is mental masturbation needless verbiage. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

"ThomasT" <mauicop@hawaii-politics.com> wrote in message 
news:cngouo$2gt$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:31:04 GMT, "alohacyberian"
> <alohacyberian@att.net> wrote:
>>"None of the tragedies that happened after the US withdrawal from Southeast
>>Asia should have come as a surprise. But they did to those of us in the
>>antiwar movement because we had blinded ourselves to any reality.
>>
>>"Will today's current peace protestors eventually feel as foolish as I do? 
>>I
>>think even more so. "
>> ~ Gerald Posner, _Was I That Stupid?_,
>> ~ http://www.accessnorthgeorgia.com/news/newfullstory.asp?ID=69541
>
> Good quote!!  Kinda' refreshing to see Posner admit he was wrong.
> Turns out the "domino's" DID fall.  All of those Russian AK's and
> Chinese burp guns the NVA was running around with didn't come from
> WalMart.  The communists, the Cambodians, Laotians and even Cubans all
> had a finger in the pie.  You can lay the lion's share of the  post-US
> pull-out massacre right at the door's of Fonda, Hayden, the Berrigans,
> Kerry and Ramsey Clark among others.
>
> General Vo Nguyen Giap (paraphrased): "I thought I was going
> to lose the war after the disastrous failure of the Tet Offensive
> so Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a godsend.
> Thanks, John, I couldn't have done it without you!
> " http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml
>

Touche! Kerry could learn a thing or two from Posner. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:05:43 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:


>OK, then what do you call the doctrine by which the attack on Fallujah was
>fought?

MOUT - Military Operations in Urban Terrain.



--

"Saddam was found cowering in his little hole
in the ground. Supposedly, his goal was to remain
in hiding until all the shooting stopped. Well,
hey, it worked for the French."  Jay Leno

remove underscore wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:05:43 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>OK, then what do you call the doctrine by which the attack on Fallujah was
>>fought?
> 
> MOUT - Military Operations in Urban Terrain.
>


Thank you.  I'll look it up, and study it, and when I've figured out what is
wrong with it, I will let you know.

Oh and hey, I don't mind doing the military's homework for them.  The
military is a mess, and somebody else always has to clean up after it.


-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

alohacyberian wrote:

> 
> Uh, it doesn't much matter what Thomas' position might be; what matters is
> that you have not and apparently cannot refute his arguments. If you
> cannot support your own positions or rebut his stances, silence is the
> indicated solution. KM


LOL.  It's my thread, shitbird.  

Thomas doesn't have arguments.  Proof: you no can fin' em, so you like
kapakai i ka hole 'ting.

All Thomas has is a really, really bad stink attitude.


-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<cnh1i9$6vo$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> "RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:ed856011.0411171112.690ca95b@posting.google.com...
> > "DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>  news:<cneiou$4s9$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> > > "Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > news:7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net...
> > > > RTO Trainer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > > > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb
>  is
> > > > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the
>  troops
> > > > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor,
>  3rd,
> > > > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
> > > > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US
>  side.
> > > > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in
>  the
> > > > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to
>  get
> > > > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the
>  other
> > > > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war
>  blogs,
> > > > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > > > >
> > > > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> > > >
> > > > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > > > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > > > >
> > > > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > > > doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different
>  conceptions
> > > > > of the term "doctrine."
> > > >
> > > > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's
>  quite
> > > > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine.
> > > > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce
>  about
> > > > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
>  indirect,
> > > > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam
>  era,
> > > > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong.
>  The
> > > > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result
>  of
> > > > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> > > >
> > > > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > > > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
>  destroy
> > > > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave
>  risk
> > > > for another 9/ll at home.
> > >
> > > I spent some time above the Ho Trail shelling anything that moved.  We
>  used
> > > Overwhelming Firepower once they removed the stupid rules and we got a
> > > President that was no longer being lied to and didn't try to micromanage
> > > each every round fired. Sounds to me like you were there 1968 at the
>  latest.
> > > I didn't show up until 1969 and it wasn't until 1970 that the rules were
>  all
> > > but removed from us where we could shell anything that moved.  20mm
>  Vulcans
> > > make wonderful Elephant guns.
> > >
> > > The doctrine is much the same as Nam was from 1970 to 1974 in more ways
>  than
> > > the kids realize.  The term "Win their Hearts and Minds" was used back
>  then
> > > as well.  Had it not been for Pres Ford, the South might still be a
>  seperate
> > > nation from the North.
> >
> > Overwhelming Firepower is not *current* doctrine.
> >
> > 1969 to 1974 is not *current.*
> 
> LOL, it's used whenver possible these days.  When the 101st was backed up
> against an Iraqi Republican Guard that was well trained, manned and supplied
> right outside of Bagdad, ALL the Apaches were at least damaged and one was
> lost.  The 101st showed the virtues of thinking when they backed off and
> called in the Navy and Air Force who bombed them back into the BC.  Then the
> 101st reentered.  That was a prime example of using Overwhelming Firepower.
> There are tons and tons of examples of it being used when necessary even in
> the Mosul and Fallaha (sp) invasion.  Without the threat of it, more enemy
> would stay and fight house to house.  With it, they know if they emass in a
> house, the house gets completely leveled.
> 
> 1.  If that isn't Overwhelming Firepower then nothing is short of Hiroshima
> 
> 2.    And that is written into the current doctrine
> 
> 3.    It helps keep casualties down.
> 
> I guess you aren't too worried about #3 sitting that far from the battle.
> But I am quite sure there is some troops crouched behind that Cement Road
> Divider that has it on the forefront of their thoughts.  And the Enemy is
> certainly thinking about it as well.

I have not said that overwhelming firepower is never used, nor that it
is not sometimes tactically appropriate.  I have only stated, several
times that it is not cuurent doctrine.  And it isn't.

Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message news:<1226689.1DYTBNVvNn@news.verizon.net>...
> RTO Trainer wrote:
> 
> >> > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
> >> > of the term "doctrine."
> >> 
> >> We probably do.��And�you're�in�the�signal�corps,�no?��I�think�that's
> >> quite honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on
> >> doctrine. Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a
> >> refernce about doctrine.��I�thought�wrong.
> >> 
> > 
> > My Signal Corps experience does not make me a expert on doctrine.
> > Being a more than averagely curiousl and studious soldier, though
> > makes ne better informed than most in the same position though.��I've
> > read FM 3-0 which defines and describes current doctrine.
> > 
> 
> OK, then, it is clear to me that if current doctrine is what led to the
> wholesale slaughter and destruction in Fallujah, then current doctrine is
> bad doctrine.  
> 
> I think there's a limit to the quibbling about words that you can do over
> 100 body bags, this month alone.

You are making a lot of assumptions without evidence.

"DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<cngm3n$3c0$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> "RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> news:ed856011.0411170857.11448dab@posting.google.com...
> > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
>  news:<7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net>...
> > > RTO Trainer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a bomb is
> > > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the troops
> > > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor, 3rd,
> > > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely away.
> > > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US
>  side.
> > > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people in
>  the
> > > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going to
>  get
> > > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the
>  other
> > > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war
>  blogs,
> > > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > > >
> > > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> > >
> > > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > > >
> > > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > > doctrine.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different conceptions
> > > > of the term "doctrine."
> > >
> > > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's
>  quite
> > > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on doctrine.
> > > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce
>  about
> > > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> > >
> >
> > My Signal Corps experience does not make me a expert on doctrine.
> > Being a more than averagely curiousl and studious soldier, though
> > makes ne better informed than most in the same position though.  I've
> > read FM 3-0 which defines and describes current doctrine.
> >
> > I didn't reference a blog.
> >
> > > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
>  indirect,
> > > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam era,
> > > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply wrong.
>  The
> > > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result of
> > > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> > >
> > > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
>  destroy
> > > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave
>  risk
> > > for another 9/ll at home.
> >
> > Overwhelming Firepower is not current doctrine.
> 
> It's not part of any doctrine.  It's there as a tool to be used when
> necessary.  One does not use it when it's not necessary as it would cause
> unnecessary damage.  But to not use it when it IS necessary would be against
> any doctrine that the US has had since 1976 now that PRez Johnson isn't
> there to micro manage and Westmoreland isnt' there to lie to him in the
> first place.

It was, once, doctrine.  It isn't anymore, because there are other
options given appropriate circumstances.

RTO Trainer wrote:

> 
> I have not said that overwhelming firepower is never used, nor that it
> is not sometimes tactically appropriate.��I�have�only�stated,�several
> times that it is not cuurent doctrine.��And�it�isn't.



It is possible then, that the attack of Fallujah was simply a departure from
current doctrine, and the use of Overwhelming Firepowere as a percieved
"tactical necessity?"

-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message 
news:1811537.kDNHp50zDc@news.verizon.net...
> alohacyberian wrote:
>> Uh, it doesn't much matter what Thomas' position might be; what matters is
>> that you have not and apparently cannot refute his arguments. If you
>> cannot support your own positions or rebut his stances, silence is the
>> indicated solution. KM
>
> LOL.  It's my thread, shitbird.
>
> Thomas doesn't have arguments.  Proof: you no can fin' em, so you like
> kapakai i ka hole 'ting.
>
> All Thomas has is a really, really bad stink attitude.
>

LOL! This is a Usenet thread and therefore belongs to anyone who wishes to 
participate. And once again, you provide no rebuttal to Thomas or anyone 
else, just puerile name-calling and personal slurs. Or is it your intent to 
more amply demonstrate that you cannot support your own positions and can't 
refute opposing thoughts? Congratulations for being another Leftwing Liberal 
poster boy. KM
-- 
(-:alohacyberian:-)  At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/ 

"RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:ed856011.0411181023.b798b3b@posting.google.com...
> "DeadMeat" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<cngm3n$3c0$1@news.chatlink.com>...
> > "RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
> > news:ed856011.0411170857.11448dab@posting.google.com...
> > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> >  news:<7152320.AaHMmCGklK@news.verizon.net>...
> > > > RTO Trainer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<1204636.UY531aNM1O@news.verizon.net>...
> > > > >> DeadMeat wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I understand what Overwhelming Firepower is. That's where a
bomb is
> > > > >> > dropped on a house housing your enemy. Or where you have the
troops
> > > > >> > come in behind a couple or three M-1s that blow the 2nd floor,
3rd,
> > > > >> > 4th, and fifth window on the 2nd and third floor completely
away.
> > > > >> > Hell, kid, it's done all the time and it saves lives on the US
> >  side.
> > > > >> > If you overkill it then it's still dead and you lost NO people
in
> >  the
> > > > >> > first place. If you underkill it your ground troops are going
to
> >  get
> > > > >> > some pretty nasty surprises.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That makes sense.  But then why is it, pray tell, that one of the
> >  other
> > > > >> military geniuses on this thread assures me, on the basis of war
> >  blogs,
> > > > >> that this doctrine, i.e., overwhelming firepower, is outdated?
> > > > >
> > > > > Who made that assurance to you "on the basis of war blogs?"
> > > >
> > > > I wrote that before I looked at your blog.  I don't know how I would
> > > > characterize it, but I think is's not a typical war blog.
> > > > >
> > > > > I told you it was no longer doctrine on the basis of current Army
> > > > > doctrine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different
conceptions
> > > > > of the term "doctrine."
> > > >
> > > > We probably do.  And you're in the signal corps, no?  I think that's
> >  quite
> > > > honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on
doctrine.
> > > > Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a refernce
> >  about
> > > > doctrine.  I thought wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My Signal Corps experience does not make me a expert on doctrine.
> > > Being a more than averagely curiousl and studious soldier, though
> > > makes ne better informed than most in the same position though.  I've
> > > read FM 3-0 which defines and describes current doctrine.
> > >
> > > I didn't reference a blog.
> > >
> > > > I'm a Navy veteran, and my relationship to Army doctrine is quite
> >  indirect,
> > > > but nonetheless real.  I was in Naval Intelligence in the Viet Nam
era,
> > > > watching China, and the doctrine about intelligence was simply
wrong.
> >  The
> > > > intelligence we produced was simply ignored, and the ultimate result
of
> > > > that doctrine, stupidly conducted for the next 40 years, was 9/11.
> > > >
> > > > The current Army doctrine of overwhlming firepower has resulted in a
> > > > wowrld-class atrocity in Fallujah.  This will, at least, completely
> >  destroy
> > > > what's left of our credibility in the world, and it puts us at grave
> >  risk
> > > > for another 9/ll at home.
> > >
> > > Overwhelming Firepower is not current doctrine.
> >
> > It's not part of any doctrine.  It's there as a tool to be used when
> > necessary.  One does not use it when it's not necessary as it would
cause
> > unnecessary damage.  But to not use it when it IS necessary would be
against
> > any doctrine that the US has had since 1976 now that PRez Johnson isn't
> > there to micro manage and Westmoreland isnt' there to lie to him in the
> > first place.
>
> It was, once, doctrine.  It isn't anymore, because there are other
> options given appropriate circumstances.

It never really was in the doctrine. It's a tool that is made available.
You claim it was yet we were probihited from using it without express
permission from the POTUS.  The micromanagement of the Military at War
doctrine has changed, not the use of Overwhelming Firepower.  Had we been
able to use it from 1965, there would be no North Korea or South Korea but
under a different government than today.  Under Johnson, we were completely
prohibited from dropping one single bomb up north without Johnsons prior
approval.  Johnson once said, "Not a single bomb drops without my
permission".  He was correct.  We lost thousands of troops to this
stupidity.  Without his meddling, the war would have been completely won by
1968.

"RTO Trainer" <bill.white@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:ed856011.0411181022.72b478e4@posting.google.com...
> Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
news:<1226689.1DYTBNVvNn@news.verizon.net>...
> > RTO Trainer wrote:
> >
> > >> > Perhaps the problem here is that you and I have different
conceptions
> > >> > of the term "doctrine."
> > >>
> > >> We probably do. And you're in the signal corps, no? I think that's
> > >> quite honorable, but it doesn't necessarily make you an expert on
> > >> doctrine. Since you referenced that blog, I thought it was probably a
> > >> refernce about doctrine. I thought wrong.
> > >>
> > >
> > > My Signal Corps experience does not make me a expert on doctrine.
> > > Being a more than averagely curiousl and studious soldier, though
> > > makes ne better informed than most in the same position though. I've
> > > read FM 3-0 which defines and describes current doctrine.
> > >
> >
> > OK, then, it is clear to me that if current doctrine is what led to the
> > wholesale slaughter and destruction in Fallujah, then current doctrine
is
> > bad doctrine.
> >
> > I think there's a limit to the quibbling about words that you can do
over
> > 100 body bags, this month alone.
>
> You are making a lot of assumptions without evidence.

LOL, you are being troll, there twinkie.

AUK Registrar wrote:

>>What the 404thk00ks are doing is to say that since they use a miriad of
>>Socks
> 
> Yet another claim you continue to make but have yet to prove. What you
> mean is you THINK "they use a miriad [sic] of Socks". And you only think
> that because you cannot believe that there are so many people who dislike
> you. Your ego can't handle it so you rationalize something that makes it
> look more palatable to you.
> 

Do you have any idea where this guy is getting this "404thk00ks" trance
anchor?  There's got to be a story behind this.  I've asked him, but he
avoids the question.


-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

"Dharmananda" <Nil@neph.net> wrote in message
news:1279829.jlUPDlvqb1@news.verizon.net...
> AUK Registrar wrote:
>
> >>What the 404thk00ks are doing is to say that since they use a miriad of
> >>Socks
> >
> > Yet another claim you continue to make but have yet to prove. What you
> > mean is you THINK "they use a miriad [sic] of Socks". And you only think
> > that because you cannot believe that there are so many people who
dislike
> > you. Your ego can't handle it so you rationalize something that makes it
> > look more palatable to you.
> >
>
> Do you have any idea where this guy is getting this "404thk00ks" trance
> anchor?  There's got to be a story behind this.  I've asked him, but he
> avoids the question.

You haven't been listening too well and I don't feel the need to repeat
myself to a Troll.

remove underscore wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:08:00 GMT, Dharmananda <Nil@neph.net> wrote:
> 
>>remove underscore wrote:
>>
>>> In a military context - doctrine is an organized set of standards and
>>> procedures that allow a large and diverse organization to function
>>> cooperatively to achieve a common goal.
>>> 
>>
>>So what was the goal of the Army doctrine -- by whatever name -- in the
>>attack on Fallujah?
> 
> Doctrine is not a goal.  Doctrine is a framework used by soldiers for
> co-ordination and planning.
> 
> And the operational goals of the attack on Falluja have been discussed
> in the media so many times that I am not even going to bother
> repeating them.
> 
> 
And those goals -- to break the back of the insurgency, and to prepare Iraq
for elections -- are now farther from reality, by universal perception
throughout the major media, with the exception of FOX news, than they were
before the attack. Leaked Marine intelligence essentially agrees with them. 
(Don't tell me you have access to intelligene.  That, if true, which it
can't be if you don't have a security clearance, wouldn't invalidate my
argument)

A doctrine which frustrates its own goals is necessarily bad, wrong, stupid,
inept, incompetent, or downright corrupt, however you want to characterize
it.  Don't ask me to prove that to you.  You're supposed to understand that
one thing leads to another, and that a doctrine has no value apart from its
capacity to achieve its stated goal.  That's how everything works on this
planet.  Your brain is no exception, if it's functioning normally.

Therefore, it follows that the doctrine at Falluja can rightly be called BAD
DOCTRINE, and the evidence to me is that the doctrine that was used was
not, in fact, MOUT.  It was Overwhelming Firepower.  The Marine commanders
even compared the attack, in their pre-operation pep talks, to the battle
at Hue, which was fought by that doctrine, to an equally stupid and
disasterous result.

QED.



-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html

Ed Moise wrote:

>> "ThomasT" <mauicop@hawaii-politics.com> wrote in message
>> news:cngouo$2gt$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
>> > General Vo Nguyen Giap (paraphrased): "I thought I was going
>> > to lose the war after the disastrous failure of the Tet Offensive
>> > so Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War was a godsend.
>> > Thanks, John, I couldn't have done it without you!
>> > " http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/10/222651.shtml
> 
> This is not a paraphrase of anything actually said or written by
> General Giap.  It is only a paraphrase of something that Oliver North
> falsely claimed had been written by General Giap.
> 
> North claimed Giap had written this in a 1985 memoir.  There is not
> 1985 memoir by General Giap.  And there is no memoir by Giap of any
> date that contains this statement.
> 
> Ed Moise


The latest in a long line of ridiculous, stupid, dishonest, foul, vile,
self-serving, petty, rancorous, Dilbertesque, benighted, stupid,
Neanderthal, Neanderthal, Neanderthal, stupid, half-witted, bird brained,
foul, disgusting, stupid, gauche, cretinous, drooling, blind and stupid
Repug forgeries.

Oh, and hey, did I mention STUPID yet?

-- 
Triratanam sharanam gaccami
Dharmananda

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6zeam/american-buddhist/news.html