Replies

Pick a better source next time. I don't think the Chinese Communists can be relied on for objective reporting. Here's the run down on your source.

Asia Times Online, http://www.atimes.com and http://www.asiatimes-chinese.com , is a quality Internet-only publication that reports and examines geopolitical, political, economic and business issues. We look at these issues from an Asian perspective; this distinguishes us from the mainstream English-language media, whose reporting on Asian matters is generally by Westerners, for Westerners. Our Chinese-language edition presents our articles to Chinese readers around the world.

We are served by more than 30 correspondents and contributors in 13 Asian countries, the US, and Europe. Additional content is provided by news services and renowned think tank and investment analysts and academics.

Asia Times Online was founded at the beginning of 1999 and is incorporated and duly registered in Hong Kong. It derives its revenues from advertising and the resale of original content to other publications and news services.

Historically, in our publication policy and editorial outlook, we are the successor of Asia Times, the Hong Kong/Bangkok-based daily print newspaper founded in 1995 and associated with the Manager Media Group, which had to cease publication in the summer of 1997 as a result of the Asian financial crisis. Like its predecessor, Asia Times Online gives its readers worldwide an overview of Asian news events, looking behind the headlines that are the stuff of the news agencies and networks.

The battle lines are being shaped by rapid penetration and deployment of US forces; follow on forces are still pouring into Iraq in Combat formations. Those presently on the ground are drawing Iraqi fire and the sources of fire are being eliminated.... Once enough firepower is deployed adjacent to the Iraqi's, the cat and mouse frents to draw fire for softening up purposes will gradually give way to increased break throughs. The calculated break throughs will cause the Iraqi lines to capitulate at some future point; whether one week or one month, they will lack the sustainability to remain in continuous combat.

In the battle of Cannae (216 BC), invader Hannibal faced numerically superior Roman forces. Both sides lined up in traditional fashion, infantry at the center, cavalry on the flanks.

As they say, the Romans were still fighting the last war (using the same tactics they had used in the past.) This was their failure. Hannibal came up with a solution to their tactics (which is why you don't want to keep doing the same thing over and over.

Having said that, I don't think we are seeing the Coalition Forces "fighting" the last war. Going in before the Air War started for one.

The United States made a decision to keep the civilian casualties low, we can do this only at a price. I will wait until the war is over to decide if the price was worth it. But, having made that decision, we can not do what we need to do to keep our casualities low (bomb the hell out of everything).

There is more to war then being able to kill, you need organization, command, and supplies. Iraq will fight this war with whatever supplies they have on hand. No matter how much that is, it is not enough.

We are only seeing what the "embedded" reporters are seeing. What is the 82nd Airborne doing, what about the 101st and the 173rd? We are not getting much news from the north, or the west. I have a feeling we have not really seen the "shock and awe" campaign yet.

Anyway, that is my opinion.

This is the typical Russian Strategy. Let the harsh land defeat the invading Army. In Russia you try to delay the army until the winter can destroy the enemy. In Iraq you delay until the heat becomes unbearable. Extend the enemy's supply lines and attack his logistics.

What the Russians seemed to forgotten was the Power of America's air arm. Think back or read about the Berlin Airlift and remember UPS delivers World Wide.

I'm beginning to this this whole war is a farce. It's based on 'we have to destroy this village to save it' philosophy. It is also based a bit on 'if we dangle freedom in their face, what idiot won't take it?'

Well, a lot of idiots out there do NOT want it. The iraqis aren't worshiping US ass now because we've bombed them. Any notion that they would was folly.

I'm sorry to be so harsh, but we have to face it. You can't get blood from a turnip, as my grandmother used to say.

We aren't going to fix iraq. We *can't*.

That said, the option I support it depopulation. There's simply no other answer at this point. Either we give up and die, or fight and win.

Right now we're trying to play the middle and we're gonna lose, badly.