military strategy...wrong

What is going on here. Are we going to let Iraq's
tricks kill us. Iraq fake surrenders then they kill us.
That is pathetic. If we want to win, then we go in there
and take out anyone who is Iraqi. We can't let their
tricks kill us.
We should lead the infantry with air bombing to clear
the way for our boys. We should not worry about how much it will cost to rebuild,1st we must win.
We started this war,we better win!
PRESIDENT BUSH GET WITH THE PROGRAM
THIS IS AMERICAN AND BRITISH BLOOD YOU ARE
SPILLING!! THIS IS AN ORDER!

They can't do that, that'll be against thier own objectives. The world would see Bush as the aggressor. For me he already is.

we are pledged to wage war with certain morals and values, and honor, and uphold certain international conventions. While this was a prime reason for the fiasco in Vietnam, we have learned a lot since then, and are now capable of winning while still keeping with those values. Such tricks only serve to reinforce our reasons for removing this regime in the first place. Keep that in mind, the next time you see this...

Welcome to the "ART OF WAR".

Read the book. It will blow your mind away.
It can be used in anyway of your life.

Ancient Japanese book...........

Originally posted by U.S. Patriot
Welcome to the "ART OF WAR".

Read the book. It will blow your mind away.
It can be used in anyway of your life.

Ancient Japanese book...........

Do you mean Sun Tzu's ART OF WAR ?

www.ccs.neu.edu...

Which ruler is wise and more able?
Which commander is more talented?
WHICH ARMY OBTAINS THE ADVANTAGES OF NATURE AND THE TERRAIN?
In which army are regulations and instructions better carried out?
Which troops are stronger?
Which army has the better-trained officers and men?
Which army administers rewards and punishments in a more enlightened and correct way?

By means of these seven elements, I shall be able to forecast which side will be victorious and which will be defeated.

You are right.

I was speaking more out of anger hearing about US
and British deaths.

I hope they can think of another strategy, instead
of wondering who the enemy is.

I hope everything works out.

There is no doubt as to who's winning here... The press is just looking through a keyhole, and since the military isn't furnishing them with a lot of info on gains...they seem to have resorted to reporting every single insignificant (no disrespect here, just meaning the relative numbers) casualty instead. While this manner of reporting is deplorable, don't get swept away by it...

By every conceivable point of reference, we are winning this war better and faster, than any war ever fought in history. Think about that the next time you see footage of a POW...and think about how many hundreds of Iraqi POWs we have....

Answer to USPAT's questions:

>Which ruler is wise and more able?
*Judged on IQ and political experience : Saddam Hussein


>Which commander is more talented?
*no question : Saddam Hussein. In power for thirty years.

>WHICH ARMY OBTAINS THE ADVANTAGES OF NATURE >AND THE TERRAIN?
*Iraq

>In which army are regulations and instructions better >carried out?
*When you consider the friendly fire incidents, the answer is again : the Iraqi armies

>Which troops are stronger?
*What do you mean ? The USA has more bombs, yes

>Which army has the better-trained officers and men?
*both USMC and Republican Corps
besides, dont underestimate Iraqi civilians. They shoot Apache's down

>Which army administers rewards and punishments in a >more enlightened and correct way?
*Both have head prize, same incentive system

>By means of these seven elements, I shall be able to >forecast which side will be victorious and which will be >defeated.


Im not so sure .. even if US lacks the moral superiority over Iraq, i think they will win because Gen. "Franks" will be willing to pay any humanitarian price for victory (iE bomb Baghdad, the craddle of civilization)

But there is another point that could turn the whole situation over : other islamic factions joining into the conflict. If that happens, it could also mean defeat to the USA.

You blindman...........that was an excerpt from the the book "THE ART OF WAR"

Bush's cabinet has a long history of experience with warfare. ie....Powell...et cetera.

Obviously, you have no clue.

But your opinions are intresting.

[Edited on 24-3-2003 by U.S. Patriot]

">Which ruler is wise and more able?
*Judged on IQ and political experience : Saddam Hussein"

***This is the only point I will agree on.


">Which commander is more talented?
*no question : Saddam Hussein. In power for thirty years."

***The key word here, is "commander". So far, I think that Franks has certainly "commanded" better than Saddam, so the answer here is, the US.

">WHICH ARMY OBTAINS THE ADVANTAGES OF NATURE >AND THE TERRAIN?
*Iraq"

***Wrong again. We use the advantage of night and hit the Iraqis before they even know we are there.

">In which army are regulations and instructions better >carried out?
*When you consider the friendly fire incidents, the answer is again : the Iraqi armies"

***Amazingly, friendly fire incidents happen in EVERY war. Seeing as how the Iraqis aren't even GETTING their instructions...again, the US wins on this point as well.

">Which troops are stronger?
*What do you mean ? The USA has more bombs, yes"

***Better technology, better training, on average more physically-fit, and not motivated strictly out of fear. Again, the US wins this point as well.

">Which army has the better-trained officers and men?
*both USMC and Republican Corps
besides, dont underestimate Iraqi civilians. They shoot Apache's down"

***The Apache had a force-landing. It's unknown (at least last I checked) if it was combat-related. Also, even a caveman can shoot down a chopper with a bow and arrow, if it hits right... There is little doubt that the US soldiers are one of the best trained on the planet, and OUR officers aren't the ones surrendering entire divisions. Clearly, the US wins this point as well.

">Which army administers rewards and punishments in a >more enlightened and correct way?
*Both have head prize, same incentive system"

***Wrong again. I hardly think that an Iraqi who failed to follow orders would be treated in an "enlightened" way...unless you consider a bullet in the head "enlightened"....

">By means of these seven elements, I shall be able to >forecast which side will be victorious and which will be >defeated."

***Yep, you don't need to be a mathemetician to figure this one out...

Well Rudra's lost my confidence.

">Which army administers rewards and punishments in a >more enlightened and correct way?

Was it not Napoleon who said.

"Give a man gold, and he'll fight for you, give a man a worthless medal, and he'll die for you."

Napoleon understood, that Morale of the soldiers, was almost the key factor of victory. (Almost, because even morale couldn't save the Germans).

It was in Austria was it not? Where Napoleon faced off against Russian, Prussian, and Austrian forces, combined against him right?

He still won, not just through strategy and timing, those things are useless if your troops flee or surrender.

But because of the speech he gave.

Paraphrasing
"Those of you who fight here today, shall be remembered through all time, and shall walk higher among men, for you can say, I fought at the battle of: "can't remember name blast "

Rudra, you have much to learn from history, and from men wiser than us all.

And Sun Tzu's Art of War right? Isn't it chinese, not Japanese?

[Edited on 25-3-2003 by 5POF]

Some of you have to realize we are fighting sick sadistic people, much like demons. But just like U.S. Patriot said, it's all part of war, if the Iraqis want to use sick techniques to try to kill and dominate our troops we're just going to have to adapt and adjust to what we're dealing with. These sick tactics the Iraqi's are using and their mistreatment of POWS are just inflaming the troops more and will just tack on another reason why these troops are there and fighting. We will be victorious no matter what in any event.