President Bush is a Miserable Failure

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Not 100% accurate. *If* Saddam managed to export his weapons to Syria (a
very
unforseen event by the way that dems seem anxious to exploit as if they
knew
this was going to happen) their chance of being used probably just got cut
in
half.

The notion that Saddam might flush his chemical/biological weapons was
discussed before the invasion. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to predict
that someone with chemical weapons who was about to go down might -- if they
chose not to use them -- give them away to someone who might. And, while I
agree that any ex-Iraqi weapons under the control of the Syrian government
are relatively safe, I'm not so sure that the Syrian government is the only
recipient (by accident or design).

Allowed? You'll have to show me how we were complicit with the looting of
what
were *suspected* facilities. Ask any democrat, they'll tell you Iraq
didn't
have any WMD; so what exactly was looted?

Check out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3002169.stm.
Basically the US failed to secure know nuclear (not weapon related, but
research and the like) and they were looted. Net result is that radioactive
material suitible for making a dirty bomb are missing.

So, "allowed" as in "had a responsibility to prevent and failed to do so".

tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
threat emerges

I don't follow this one?

Sorry, typo: "hands _if_ a new". Basically what do we do now if, for
example, there is for example an Islamic revolt in Pakistan?

and alienated the entire region

Hardly. If we had alienated the entire region, we would not currently be
hosted
in nearly every country on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf.

Check out: http://people-press.org/reports/disp...3?ReportID=185. It is
a somewhat troubling sign when more people in think Osama is more likely to
do the right thing than Bush.

Uhh, because the closer you are to Iraq the less tankers you need. There
would
have been no way (unless you built a few more airfields in the region) to
put
up the same number of SOUTHERN WATCH sorties every day if most strike
aircraft
had to fly from Al Udeid or even Masirah or Thumrait. There just wasn't
enough
ramp space for all the tankers you would have needed.

How many sorties/day were flown by SOUTHERN WATCH? I admit I'm surprised
that we couldn't have supported it with a couple of airfields, but you are
the expert. Even so, though, how much would it have cost to expand the ramp
space?

If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
ridiculous
then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because we'll
suffer that many in a week there.

I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)
Silver City Tanker Base

David Pugh wrote:

The notion that Saddam might flush his chemical/biological weapons was
discussed before the invasion.

However, the most logical train of thought said that Saddam's experience with
running his more modern fighter aircraft to Iran during the first (or second
depending on how you count) Gulf War would not encourage him to try that again
with any military hardware. By the way, the "fact" that he shipped some CW
weapon to Syria is far from proven. We're kind of in an argument about a
supposition.

I'm not so sure that the Syrian government is the only
recipient (by accident or design).

Well, ask Kerry, he'll tell you not to worry because Iraq never had any weapons
and Bush lied to us. The bottom line if Kerry is wrong is that U.S. forces did
the best they could to seal off as many suspected WMD facilities as they had
the man power to.

Basically the US failed to secure know nuclear (not weapon related, but
research and the like) and they were looted.

Which is tragic, but not preventable unless we invaded Iraq with 500,000
troops.... which we may have been able to get had Russia, Germany and France
not been against us to cover-up there own "dirty dealings" in Iraq.

Basically what do we do now if, for
example, there is for example an Islamic revolt in Pakistan?

The same thing we would have done in 1994, 1999 or 10 SEP 2001, watch very
carefully and strongly encourage India not to do a first strike unless they can
confirm a transfer of nuclear weapons to radicals.

It is
a somewhat troubling sign when more people in think Osama is more likely to
do the right thing than Bush.

Ohhh, you're talking about the "Arab Street" and not the Arab governments.
Well, I've got news for you, the U.S. will *never* be popular with your typical
Arab Muslim, or most muslims in general. Its an information warfare battle we
cannot win. If they had given that poll on 12 SEP 2001, the results probably
would have been even more in favor of Bin Laden.

How many sorties/day were flown by SOUTHERN WATCH?

Hmm, a rough estimation I'd say around 40-50 sorties into the container
(southern Iraq) a day. Then you had AWACS, RJ and Compass Call sorties.

I admit I'm surprised
that we couldn't have supported it with a couple of airfields

The biggest LIMFAC for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was the number of tankers
available in theater. PSAB was unavailable for any sortie penetrating the Iraqi
ADIZ. If KSA had refused the flight of *any* aircraft out of PSAB we would have
had to reduce the number of sorties by 10-15%.

Even so, though, how much would it have cost to expand the ramp
space?

Cost isn't the only issue. The nations of Oman, UAE and Qatar have to agree as
well. Oman was very cooperative after 9/11, allowing us to build up both the
ramp and runway at Thumrait, but they still maintained (as is their right) very
tight control over aircraft flying into or out of Thumrait. The problem is also
one of geography. PSAB was 350 nautical miles from the Iraqi border. Building
up the ramps in Qatar, UAE and Oman to handle more strike aircraft would be
great, but now you need twice (or more) the tankers because you're twice( or
more) as far away. The building project you're talking about here would have
been *huge*.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Ron wrote:

If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
ridiculous
then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because we'll
suffer that many in a week there.

I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster


Well, perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I tend to think our land mine
fields, at least initially, will be fairly successful. And remember, we're
talking killed, not killed and wounded.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Ron wrote:

If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
ridiculous
then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because
we'll
suffer that many in a week there.

I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster


Well, perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I tend to think our land mine
fields, at least initially, will be fairly successful. And remember, we're
talking killed, not killed and wounded.

Guys, if you have been reading the stuff coming out of the region the last
couple of years, you'd know that the US ground forces are pulling back
further from the DMZ, and that we only have a single division (minus--only
two of three normally assigned maneuver brigades), with some corps and
theater/army level CS/CSS units, in the ROK proper. Both point to the idea
of "750 KIA in the first few hours" as being rather unlikely. Do we expect
the DPRK's air assets to be really successful in the strike role? Nope, so
they are unlikely to kill oodles of our USAF folks at the airbases down
south. Their naval forces? Hardly. Which leaves their army--big, hard...and
archaic. And facing it are three ROK armies--FROKA, SROKA, and TROKA. Big,
hard, and pretty danged modern in terms of both equipment and tactics. All
of this adds up to any new DPRK offensive yielding results that would look
nothing like those they enjoyed in their initial push in 1950, when they
faced an inadequately manned, equipped, and trained ROK army and our token
deployment of first Task Force Smith and then the constabulary-focused 24th
ID in toto (or as much "toto" as you could get from that undermanned and
undertrained skeleton force). In other words, when it comes to a
conventional fight in Korea, the sky is not going to fall down--yeah, we'll
likely take heavier casualties than we have in other recent confrontations,
but it will not be the bloodbath for our guys that y'all seem to think it
would be. Unless you think the DPRK's first salvo will be nukes--and that is
unlikely.

Brooks



BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
However, the most logical train of thought said that Saddam's experience
with
running his more modern fighter aircraft to Iran during the first (or
second
depending on how you count) Gulf War would not encourage him to try that
again
with any military hardware. By the way, the "fact" that he shipped some CW
weapon to Syria is far from proven. We're kind of in an argument about a
supposition.

Depends on his motivation: sending planes to a former enemy and hoping to
get them back might have been a tad optimistic. Dispersing
chemical/biological weapons for use against soft targets is something else
entirely. In any case, the point was that if the rational for war was to it
was required to protect the US from Saddam's weapons, then we should have
anticipated the possibility and guarded against it. We didn't, so either the
leadership was incompetent or didn't consider the weapons a serious threat.

Basically the US failed to secure know nuclear (not weapon related, but
research and the like) and they were looted.

Which is tragic, but not preventable unless we invaded Iraq with 500,000
troops.... which we may have been able to get had Russia, Germany and
France
not been against us to cover-up there own "dirty dealings" in Iraq.

Somehow I don't think that securing a few dozen sites would require an
additional 350,000 troops. Failure to do so was a matter of incompetent
leadership, not lack of resources.

Basically what do we do now if, for
example, there is for example an Islamic revolt in Pakistan?
The same thing we would have done in 1994, 1999 or 10 SEP 2001, watch very
carefully and strongly encourage India not to do a first strike unless
they can
confirm a transfer of nuclear weapons to radicals.

Somehow, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to use doctrine of pre-emption to
deal with, at worst, a moderate threat if it then leaves us unable to
respond to a major threat. Especially when dealing with the moderate threat
increases the likelyhood of a major threat (or do you think the governmens
of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are more stable now than they were in 2002).

Ohhh, you're talking about the "Arab Street" and not the Arab governments.
Well, I've got news for you, the U.S. will *never* be popular with your
typical
Arab Muslim, or most muslims in general. Its an information warfare battle
we
cannot win. If they had given that poll on 12 SEP 2001, the results
probably
would have been even more in favor of Bin Laden.

In other words, only the governments matter and not the opinions of the
general populace? I could have sworn that one of our missions was to support
democracy. In any case, the opinion of the US on the street has taken a big
hit (http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch/031703.htm). Admittedly, this is the
generally the case of going from bad to worse ... but you have to wonder
might have happened if the US had decided to spend a few billion to
establish secular schools as an alternative to the madrassas.

Hmm, a rough estimation I'd say around 40-50 sorties into the container
(southern Iraq) a day. Then you had AWACS, RJ and Compass Call sorties.

Thanks for the information.

Even so, though, how much would it have cost to expand the ramp
space?
....The building project you're talking about here would have
been *huge*.

So ... if you use the adjective huge to describe the cost of expanding the
airports, what adjective do you use to describe the cost of the war so far?

Kevin Brooks wrote:

yeah, we'll
likely take heavier casualties than we have in other recent confrontations,
but it will not be the bloodbath for our guys that y'all

By "y'all" I guess you mean you all, which, despite being from New Jersey I
understand to mean both of us. My guess is 750 KIA (+/- 150) in a week. Are you
saying that figure is inflated?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 5/17/2004 9:15 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Ron wrote:

If you believe touting 750 KIA in one year of combat as a success is
ridiculous
then I suggest you hide in a closet if Korea ever kicks off, because we'll
suffer that many in a week there.

I would figure that in the first few hours, if not even faster


Well, perhaps I am being too optimistic, but I tend to think our land mine
fields, at least initially, will be fairly successful. And remember, we're
talking killed, not killed and wounded.


BUFDRVR


Hussein thought the same thing in 1990-1991. Didn't work then, won't work now.
The agressor only has to force a few lanes through the mine fields. We used
technology the North Koreans may or may not have, but they would be perfectly
willing to use masses of men if they don't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

David Pugh wrote:

In any case, the point was that if the rational for war was to it
was required to protect the US from Saddam's weapons, then we should have
anticipated the possibility and guarded against it.

You cannot plan for every contingency. With forces on hand, you plan for the
most likely. You can do no more than that. Basically you're claiming both the
civilian and military leaders should be taken to task for not sealing off every
suspected WMD facility, sealing off the borders with Kuwait, Iran, Syria and
Saudi Arabia in addition to conducting a major air-land battle where less than
500 allied troops are killed. You sir are not thinking about what you're asking
for!

We didn't, so either the
leadership was incompetent or didn't consider the weapons a serious threat.

The leadership did the best they could with what they had. If you have a
problem with the number of forces involved, take it up with your democratic
congressman (as well as some Republicans) who are steadfastly against an
increase in U.S. military personnel.

Somehow I don't think that securing a few dozen sites would require an
additional 350,000 troops.

A few dozen? No sir, you are asking them to seal off well over 100. You can't
use your 20/20 hindsight to determine what suspected sites actually had
material in them and which ones didn't.

Failure to do so was a matter of incompetent
leadership, not lack of resources.

Gen. Franks is not incompetent.

Somehow, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to use doctrine of pre-emption to
deal with, at worst, a moderate threat

What are you talking about? The U.S. wouldn't have to lift a finger in
Pakistan. If you think India is going to allow an Islamic revolt in Pakistan to
succeed in granting accesss to nuclear weapons to radicals you are clueless.
The main job of the U.S. government would be to make sure India a.) didn't pull
the trigger until the transfer of nuclear weapons could be confirmed and
b.)made sure India hit all the sites.

In other words, only the governments matter and not the opinions of the
general populace?

What matters is a strong U.S. national security. There's very little we can do
to control public opinion in the streets of Riyadh, Muscat, Kabul or Kuala
Lumpur short of shutting down Las Vegas, converting our entire population to
Islam and kicking every female out of school. We deal with what we can control,
governments.

I could have sworn that one of our missions was to support
democracy.

Where's that written? I believe the Monroe Doctrine states we'll defend the
Americas from European colonization, but thats as close as it gets to your
pronouncement. I swore to uphold the *U.S. Constitution* against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, but this doesn't meet your intent either.

In any case, the opinion of the US on the street has taken a big
hit

Admittedly, this is the
generally the case of going from bad to worse ... but you have to wonder
might have happened if the US had decided to spend a few billion to
establish secular schools as an alternative to the madrassas.

They would crucified us as bad as if we had dropped bombs in their
neighborhoods. To the radicals, we represent everything their (twisted) version
of the Koran condems. Do you really think they're going to put up with us
building schools and educating their children?

So ... if you use the adjective huge to describe the cost of expanding the
airports, what adjective do you use to describe the cost of the war so far?

Huge, however moving out of KSA alone would have only helped in one area,
getting Saddam helped in several.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

yeah, we'll
likely take heavier casualties than we have in other recent
confrontations,
but it will not be the bloodbath for our guys that y'all

By "y'all" I guess you mean you all, which, despite being from New Jersey
I
understand to mean both of us. My guess is 750 KIA (+/- 150) in a week.
Are you
saying that figure is inflated?

No, that could be realistic--I thought the supposition from another poster
was the first day, and some other gent went even so far as to postulate a
matter of hours to rack up that number? Consider yourself
"un-y'alled"--apologies for including you in the mix.

Brooks


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"