<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Steve, <br>
In the modern army, less than half the troops are combat troops, the
majority are support. Battle has become unbelievably technical, or at
least unbelievable to a fossil like me. Remember the people who got
lost and got captured on the road to Bagdad? They were support trooops.
They couldn't fight because their weapons were dirty and the M-16 is
not tolerant of the fine sand in Iraq. The standard issue oil was a
dirt magnet. The support troops didn't train for combat, so they were
cooked with they faced it. <br>
<br>
Steve Hovland wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">I think the folly of Bush's policy in Iraq will
become apparent quite soon, with Fallujah
being the tar baby.</pre>
</blockquote>
We will see. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
Lynn may know the numbers better, but
modern armies have a lot of support troops.
Even with outsourcing of some functions,
the combat troops in Iraq may be somewhere
around 75,000.
40,000 are being committed to the battle
of Fallujah that will begin shortly, leaving
every other part of Iraq more vulnerable to
enemy attack.
</pre>
</blockquote>
The test is whether the Iraqi troops will fight. Saddam had the fourth
largest army in the world, but the ability to fight was lamentable,
probably because Saddam was basically a terrorist in charge of a
country, and you cannot terrorize people into being brave. <br>
Now the Iraqis have an equity share in the outcome. They don't want
to go back to being terrorized, which is what the terrorists in
Fallujah and elsewhere want. The morale, I am told, is fairly high, so
it may be that the new, improved Iraqi army will fight. We shall soon
see. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
The troops marshalled in Baghdad must be
a tempting target to the other side. There
may be a battle in Baghdad even before they
try to go to Fallujah.
Emphasize "try to go to Fallujah." The odds
are they will be attacked while going there,
and every supply column during the battle will
also be subject to attack.
In urban warfare, every bomb you drop creates more
hiding places for the defenders. The attacking
solders have to stand up and run toward an
enemy who is mostly concealed in piles of
rubble. The terrain heavily favors the defenders,
even if they are outnumbered. Nothing has
really changed since Stalingrad.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Well, I would disagree a bit here. Modern warfare is much kinder to the
civilian population because the ordinance is more accurate, and that
also makes the defender's lives harder and shorter. But your point is
good, this is a very hard fight, with lots of dangers.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
I think the battle may still be raging on inauguration day.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I would doubt that. The problem with Fallujah was that the pentagon and
Rumsfield lost their nerve when our marines were poised for a kill. The
LBJ scenario. Don't let the battlefield commanders make decisions. I
disapprove. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
We are also on the way to a fiscal shipwreck.
The combination of tax cuts and deficits, which may
be too esoteric for the mind of the average citizen,
is a real problem. The Euro may well emerge
as the world's reserve currency.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Already doing it. People in the futures markets were saying there would
never be parity, and now look which currency is stronger!<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
I see no reason to assume that Bush will lead
the way on energy, so that will get worse. People
now see it every time they fill up on gas or pay
their utility bill. Eventually we will see it in the
cost of everything as old inventories produced
with lower-cost energy are used up.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Our biggest long-term threat, as I see it, and a worthy challenge. I am
personally committed to doing some pathfinding and sponsoring to
alternative energies. Since I am not a liberal, I will be listened to
with more respect - I hope! <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
If Roe vs. Wade is repealed, then the lower- and
middle- class women who voted for Bush because
of his stand on abortion will be the ones who
will die from back-alley abortions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
A very unlikely scenario. Roe v. wade will not be repealed, and even if
it were, most unlikely, would only turn the abortion decision back to
the states. Some states would have it, some would not. Yours would,
mine would not. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
Many other middle- and lower-class voters
who voted for Bush on values, but against
their own economic interests, will get sick and
die for lack of national health care, their private
benefits having expired.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Healthcare is a tar baby, but I have spent a lot of time abroad and
don't want to live in a Canada style single payor system. We will need
some new and creative options. I believe HSAs are a robust solution,
since it involves the consumer in point-of-sale decisions. When every
consumer has a personal stock in how money is spent, the wiser
decisions will be made. Top-down government control will deteriorate
our system rapidly. One area Bush is right about is the Ownership
Society.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid01C4C1A8.76E8A0C0.shovland@mindspring.com">
<pre wrap="">
Eventually the pain may get bad enough to
wake some people up.
Steve Hovland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.stevehovland.net">www.stevehovland.net</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Christopher [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:SMTP:anonymous_animus@yahoo.com">SMTP:anonymous_animus@yahoo.com</a>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:10 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
Subject: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">We can no longer afford to think of the Democrats
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->as the alternative to the Republicans.<<
--If you want a third party to succeed, you'll need
someone young, wise and charismatic. I'm not sure
someone like that can be found who wouldn't be torn
apart in the primaries. It takes a lot of money to
win, and only the Democrats have the means to compete
with Republicans in the media. I'm pretty sure there
will have to be a Democrat in 08 before an independent
party can get into the debates and act as a balance.
As long as war and security issues take precedence
over alternative fuels and new ideas for domestic
policy, Greens don't have much chance on the Federal
level. But if Bush's approval rating sinks low enough
in his second term (I think without Kerry to draw
fire, Bush will have trouble justifying the results of
his policies) there may be room for an independent
candidate to get enough of the vote to start competing
with the two major parties. But if someone like McCain
ran in 08, he'd probably have an easy win. Hopefully
that would come with a shift in the GOP to marginalize
"culture war" Republicans and favor traditional
economic conservatives. Either way, any real change in
American culture is going to have to be done without
government help. We can no longer expect someone
decent to get into office and fix everything, so we'll
have to focus energy on local elections and grassroots
change.
If it were all up to me, I'd push a states' rights
agenda, and allow conservative areas to try out their
ideas and discover why they don't work. Allow liberal
states to decriminalize gay marriage and marijuana,
see if the sky falls or not. That would strengthen the
country against the fragmenting influence of the
"culture war" and relieve some of the paranoia. If
that means Alabama banning abortion and women
streaming out of the South, so be it. Let the men
fight over the virgins, and let everyone else have the
freedom to do what they want.
Michael
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.yahoo.com">www.yahoo.com</a>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
_______________________________________________
paleopsych mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych">http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>