More violence in Iraq

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That "feels" like it should be the case but is there more crime per capita in cities than in the country side - I've tried looking and can't actually find and stats either way.

Who really wants to steal that supply of corn cobs anyway.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

And I would like to say that domestic crime falls as we have more social programs, it makes sense, but I don't think the data supports that on a constant basis.

You would think it would make sense, but it doesn't and data seems to support the exact opposite (much more crime in large cities).

And see, you not only misunderstand my point, but make the same fatal error in logic that I was stating I wouldn't.

I wasn't referring to geographic areas, as most crime is inner-city, I was referring to crime in general and it's relation to the amount of welfare programs available, that is, non-corporate welfare. During the Clinton admin it was very low, then it raised and lowered when Bush was in, then raised again. I don't have a crime rate chart and don't care to look one up, but in general, there is no constant correlation between crime rate and welfare programs. That's honest, I would like to say that there is a correlation that repeats itself, but just as I can't say there is, you cannot say there isn't. The physical geographical part of the city is irrelevant, I was talking overall crime rate and its correlation to welfare, so your assertion isn't in accord with my point. I would say that inner-city crime is higher than suburban crime on a constant basis as an assumption, but have never looked up the numbers.

I understood your point just fine, thank you.

There may have been a fatal error in logic, but it wasn't mine. Several studies have shown welfare concentration in inner-cities.

Quote

Through the use of maps and other data, several major studies have shown welfare recient's concentration in inner-city neighborhoods, far from job vacancies disproportionately located in the suburbs and poorly served by existing fixed-route, public transport (Allard and Danziger, 2000; Bania et al., 1999; Lacombe, 1998).

Source here.

I've also posted an article talking about corroboration between welfare recipients and crime.

Quoted from the article:

Quote

On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Don't look now, but your offering correlations consistent with Lucky's assertions.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Given the many factors which correlate with the reduction in violence, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy which, if any, was/were the cause and which was/were irrelevant.

Oddly enough, you don't seem to have any problems with saying that the surge isn't working when violence rises - only when violence falls.

You might want to think some more about just how silly your statement is.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Don't look now, but your offering correlations consistent with Lucky's assertions.

[FallingOsh 0]

Good post. Good perspective.

Quote

The surge is supposed to give room for Iraq to make lasting political reconciliation. I'm not sure if that has happened or not as I am not privy to that info. But I hear most people say no.

By political reconciliation, do you mean sunni and shiite violence or the government taking control of it's own security? Maybe both/

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I was in Iraq during the surge, during the surge the violence decreased in Baghdad and spread or squirted to other areas of Iraq. And of course we use soft terms like violence, but we all know what they represent. dead folks, good and bad, some recently married, some just poor farmers.... suffering that cannot be refined.

anyway as... far as the surge working I guess you could weigh it in several different methods.

Violence in Baghdad is down, so i think that of course the surge successfully suppressed the violence in Baghdad. (or course its far from what any sane person would except) But what else would happen when you send more troops into any one area? of course we'll secure the shit if given enough folks, but thats the central question isn't? How many of us have to continuously rotate over there before we all individually have 3-4-5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is there an end? The surge is supposed to give room for Iraq to make lasting political reconciliation. I'm not sure if that has happened or not as I am not privy to that info. But I hear most people say no.

I can only speak for myself but I feel that the military specifically the Army and Marines are wondering what are we supposed to do? Someone created a huge mess and pretty much left it up to the us to figure out.

Don't get me wrong.. I am not against the mission but a more important discussion should be had by those who want to talk about the war. What exactly is America's strategic objective over there? I think the answer is a little more clear in Afghanistan.

But in closing I'll say that someone against the surge shouldn't be flamed. They are asking the same questions that many Soldiers want to know and as a Soldier myself I appreciate with the same sincerity any person who is for or against this conflict. sorry for the long post.

Thanks for the post. Ask a lot of very good questions.

Folks with whom I speak/communicate (uniformed USG, non-uniformed USG, and retired-USG-now-contractors in the sandbox and back CONUS) are asking a lot of the same questions.

As my favorite PhD historian said last week in testimony to HASC:

“When I entered office (January 2007), the main concern was to halt and reverse the spiraling violence in order to prevent a strategic calamity for the United States and allow the Iraqis to make progress on the political, economic, and security fronts. Although we all have criticisms of the Iraqi government, there can be no doubt that the situation is much different – and far better – than it was in early 2007. The situation, however, remains fragile.

“I worry that the great progress our troops and the Iraqis have made has the potential to over-ride a measure of caution born of uncertainty. Our military commanders do not yet believe our gains are necessarily enduring – and they believe that there are still many challenges and the potential for reversals in the future.”

The question that I'm most concerned with is how does one insure that secure and stabilization are maintained, transition continues, and reconstruction is done. We're real good at security, pretty darn good at stability, good at transition ... but our track record for reconstruction is less positive. Not doing |R| is not unlike doing everything right in a skydive until the landing.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The question that I'm most concerned with is how does one insure that secure and stabilization are maintained, transition continues, and reconstruction is done. We're real good at security, pretty darn good at stability, good at transition ... but our track record for reconstruction is less positive. Not doing |R| is not unlike doing everything right in a skydive until the landing.

I am not saying it is a lost cause.. but the artifice that is the country of Iraq, does not stand a chance of remaining a country. The Kurdish in the north and the Shia with allegiance to the Iranians will see to ensuring it will not last.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

For everyone out there that thinks the "surge" is working. A reminder that war does not end violence:

What does one statment have to do with the other?

A. The surge did work.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-28-Petraeus_N.htm

Decent article. It doesn’t, however, state what you seem to think it does. GEN Petreaus does *not* assert that the surge alone was the sole factor in decreasing violence in Iraq. I can see how if one begins reading with the idea in mind, you can interpret that; however, the article doesn’t says that. And he hasn’t.

What factors have contributed to the decrease in violence in Iraq?

(1) The Awakening Councils. After the bombing of Sunni mosques (in retaliation for the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque (Golden Dome Mosque in Samarra), the Sunni tribes and insurgent groups (many of whom were members of the former Sunni government & the disbanded Iraqi Army) realized (awakened to the fact) that the Sunnis were not going to return to Hussayn-era minority rule of Iraq. The Awakening Councils manage payment for the …

(2) Sons of Iraq paramilitary groups. These are Sunni paramilitary groups paid for by your tax dollars. At ~$300 a month, it’s a lot cheaper than the costs associated with US soldiers and the non-specific costs of US soldiers lives. Many of the same insurgents who previously had been fighting against the multi-national forces have been paid to secure the areas that previously were major ‘hot spots’ like al Anbar province (control of which I noted in a post last week was transferred from MNF to Iraq Army), Baqubah, and Diyala.

GEN Petraeus' comments on Sunni Awakening, Sons of Iraq, and increases in capabilities of Iraq security forces from Defenselink.mil here:

“‘Since the first Sunni ‘awakening’ in late 2006, Sunni communities in Iraq increasingly have rejected indiscriminate violence and extremist ideology. These communities also recognized that they could not share in Iraq’s bounty if they didn’t participate in the political arena.’ [... also realized they would be unlikely to participate in expected economic bounty - nerdgirl]

“More than 91,000 Sons of Iraq local security volunteers are under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads, Petraeus said. These [paid] volunteers have helped to reduce violence and contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons caches, he said. The Sons of Iraq have been directly responsible for many lives and vehicles saved, and their value far outweighs the cost of the contracts to pay them, he said.

“‘Given the importance of the Sons of Iraq, we are working closely with the Iraqi government to transition them into the Iraqi security forces or other forms of employment, and over 21,000 have already been accepted into the police or army or other government jobs. This process has been slow, but it is taking place, and we will continue to monitor it carefully.’

“For nearly six months, security incidents in Iraq have been at a level not seen since early-to-mid 2005, Petraeus reported. Also, the level of civilian deaths has decreased to a level not seen since the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. Deaths due to ethno-sectarian violence have fallen since September, and the number of high-profile attacks is far below what it was a year ago, the general said.

“Iraqi security forces have grown considerably and continued to develop since September, Petraeus said. More than 540,000 people now serve in the Iraqi forces, and half of Iraq’s 18 provinces are under Iraqi provincial control. Additionally, Iraqi’s training base has become more robust and is expected to generate another 50,000 Iraqi soldiers and 16 army and special operations battalions through the rest of 2008, he said.

“Coalition officials expect that Iraq will spend more than $8 billion on security this year and $11 billion next year, he said, allowing the United States to reduce its Iraqi security forces fund for fiscal 2009 from $5.1 billion to $2.8 billion.”

This type of support – direct and cooperative – between the US military and former Iraqi insurgents is part of …

(3) Counterinsurgency Theory, aka “COIN”. OIF started as a first attempt to demonstrate the power of defense transformation. SecDef Rumsfeld attempted to apply Transformation Theory to execute OIF … except the force was still (largely) trained/training, equipping, and preparing to fight under the doctrine of more traditional warfighting theory and, more importantly, Iraq was not a peer-competitor. It was not unlike like trying to apply CRW techniques (defense transformation) to a bunch of bigway RW divers (traditional military operations) doing a BASE jump (counterinsurgency operations). Yes, all involve parachutes and folks who have skydiving training, and two involve people jumping out of airplanes, but you are much more likely to be successful on a BASE jump if you use BASE techniques and BASE equipment. (BTW: I'm a proponent of defense transformation.)

The Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual (FM 3-24) was overseen by GEN Petraeus (PhD Princeton) and now-retired LTC John Nagl (USA). As part of COIN theory, the importance of changing the views of the insurgents (i.e., pay them to fight someone other than you) and the value of tacit support of the population is paramount. In order to get the tacit support of the population, one has to have basic security in areas of extreme conflict, like Anbar before …

(4) “The Surge”. If more members of the best military in the world along with lots of US tax payers dollars are sent to a conflict area, one would quite reasonably expect immediate security to increase. (It may be positive evidence for the aphorism that throwing more money at a problem *does* work, eh?) The introduction of more troops to targeted areas facilitated the immediate securing of those areas to allow stabilization so that transition (e.g.., the handover of Anbar province) could begin.


--- -- --- -- ---

For those who are advocates of OIF, being cognizant of more than 10-sec partisan political talking points seems to be an example of personal responsibility. Deficiency is an example of lack thereof.

This is an example, im-ever-ho, of some in the mainstream commercial media ‘dumbing down’ reporting. The US population is not stupid and can understand these ideas. If the only thing that one hears about is “surge” or “no surge” then it’s hard to fault why those are the only variables one thinks are worthy of consideration. Most of the real world functions on more than a single variable …actually frequently a number of independent and dependent variables.

It's also a good example of why what the rest of the world thinks *IS* important: implementing and executing US strategic objectives is a lot easier when they're not shooting at you (aka a 16-word distilled synopsis of COIN theory).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I am not saying it is a lost cause.. but the artifice that is the country of Iraq, does not stand a chance of remaining a country. The Kurdish in the north and the Shia with allegiance to the Iranians will see to ensuring it will not last.

That is something to consider. The Kurdish north was functioning as a pseudo-state for almost a decade. In 10 or 20 years will succession attempta like Bosnia or Kosovo be observed? Or like Montenegro? I don't know.

Failure to do |R| will increase the probability of Iraq becoming a failed state. Reconstruction and support of institutions is more likely to decrease the liklihood of that scenario.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I understood your point just fine, thank you. There may have been a fatal error in logic, but it wasn't mine. Several studies have shown welfare concentration in inner-cities.


We agree on that, I never asserted otherwise. What I was saying is that the national crime rate in general can't be correlated to the economy even though I would like to say it diminishes under increased social programs and you would like to say the opposite.

You're trying to say that it geographically increases in inner-cities where they have more welfare distributed. I HIGHLY doubt you have have data to support that. I'm not saying it is or is not true, just that you pulled it oput of your ass, but you would have to have national data for:

- crime in inner cities
- welfare distribution in inner cities vs suburbian areas
- population for each and the associated crime rates
- several decade history for each

It would be a complex issue to really investgate and draw a conclusion. You don't strike me as the kind of guy to exhaustingly go thru piles of data.

My main point to this whole mess is that I am generally liberal, so I like to blame the neo-con agenda for most ills. As I might be right, it is not intelligent to do so, so I collect the data to find a correlating factor, then, as Prof stated, see if there is a causal factor. I would say that you probably blame inner-city youth, welfare, social programs, etc for most things w/o doing 1 oz of research; this methodology is really ridiculous.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've also posted an article talking about corroboration between welfare recipients and crime.


And the article's methodology is:

He’d built up enough trust with the police to get them to send him daily crime and arrest reports, including addresses and types of crime

So the method for collection of data is not only dependent upon the police, but it is narrowed to one city. Science would not consider this data worthwhile by itself.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.


This only covers violent crime, not all crime as I stated. Furthermore, section 8 is just one area of welfare, many suburbian areas have welfare recipients of all kinds.


We're making different points here, mine is and always was of a global nature of US crime rate fluctuations vs crime rate fluctuations..... yours was the incidence of inner-city crime in section 8 housing in one city. Obviously, to everyone in here, your methodology is ala John Wayne, mine is much more comprehensive. Yours is good enough for you, mine is never complete so only inferences can be drawn. Both of our models have a correlation to our political ideologies I would infer.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Reconstruction and support of institutions is more likely to decrease the liklihood of that scenario.

The problem is.. the reconstruction efforts have been a sham at best. Far too many american tax dollars have been wasted on shoddy work with substandard materials for maximum profit of the companies who got these wonderful contracts. We the People have been fleeced.. but far too many on the right seem to think that is just fine. The level of incompetence in the "reconstruction" is unprecedented.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Don't look now, but your offering correlations consistent with Lucky's assertions.

That the data doesn't support social programs reducing crime? Quelle surprise. He said that he didn't think the data supported his wish - I merely provided a measure of proof for him.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

I was in Iraq during the surge, during the surge the violence decreased in Baghdad and spread or squirted to other areas of Iraq. And of course we use soft terms like violence, but we all know what they represent. dead folks, good and bad, some recently married, some just poor farmers.... suffering that cannot be refined.

anyway as... far as the surge working I guess you could weigh it in several different methods.

Violence in Baghdad is down, so i think that of course the surge successfully suppressed the violence in Baghdad. (or course its far from what any sane person would except) But what else would happen when you send more troops into any one area? of course we'll secure the shit if given enough folks, but thats the central question isn't? How many of us have to continuously rotate over there before we all individually have 3-4-5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is there an end? The surge is supposed to give room for Iraq to make lasting political reconciliation. I'm not sure if that has happened or not as I am not privy to that info. But I hear most people say no.

I can only speak for myself but I feel that the military specifically the Army and Marines are wondering what are we supposed to do? Someone created a huge mess and pretty much left it up to the us to figure out.

Don't get me wrong.. I am not against the mission but a more important discussion should be had by those who want to talk about the war. What exactly is America's strategic objective over there? I think the answer is a little more clear in Afghanistan.

But in closing I'll say that someone against the surge shouldn't be flamed. They are asking the same questions that many Soldiers want to know and as a Soldier myself I appreciate with the same sincerity any person who is for or against this conflict. sorry for the long post.

Between '67 and '73, I spent 37 mos. + in Vietnam. I had the same feelings you do now. At one point after '68, I really thought we had a chance only to see it go up in smoke with Johnson stopping the bombing, and an increase of infiltration. In '72, I felt we were just giving it up until the December bombing of North Vietnam that finally got them to the peace talks. In '73, I came home to Watergate and the end. I feel for you and your friends going back and forth. Wish I could be with you. Some of my younger friends are. My generation went through a lot of grief for nothing. I sincerely hope it will not be the same for yours.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Between '67 and '73, I spent 37 mos. + in Vietnam. I had the same feelings you do now. At one point after '68, I really thought we had a chance only to see it go up in smoke with Johnson stopping the bombing, and an increase of infiltration. In '72, I felt we were just giving it up until the December bombing of North Vietnam that finally got them to the peace talks. In '73, I came home to Watergate and the end. I feel for you and your friends going back and forth. Wish I could be with you. Some of my younger friends are. My generation went through a lot of grief for nothing. I sincerely hope it will not be the same for yours.

A lot of our generation saw the futility of that war and lost friends. I joined in 1971 I got to be in the military at the end of the South East Asian War Games. I got to see the people who did go... I knew some who did not come back. I knew others who died over there and did not realize it till several years later.

I never thought we would allow our children to go thru the same stupidity brought to us by the same people.. with the same results. There are now 4100+ new Gold Star Mothers and counting. Someone asked why I am so angry about this. Its very very simple. I see people leading us into the same cycle with a never ending war.

If those asking that question are so intent on war.. by all means GO TO WAR.. dont expect someone else to do it for you.

Do we really need to have a war per generation to ensure we have blooded warriors to train the next generation?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We agree on that, I never asserted otherwise. What I was saying is that the national crime rate in general can't be correlated to the economy even though I would like to say it diminishes under increased social programs and you would like to say the opposite.

You're trying to say that it geographically increases in inner-cities where they have more welfare distributed. I HIGHLY doubt you have have data to support that. I'm not saying it is or is not true, just that you pulled it oput of your ass, but you would have to have national data for:

- crime in inner cities
- welfare distribution in inner cities vs suburbian areas
- population for each and the associated crime rates
- several decade history for each

It would be a complex issue to really investgate and draw a conclusion. You don't strike me as the kind of guy to exhaustingly go thru piles of data.

My main point to this whole mess is that I am generally liberal, so I like to blame the neo-con agenda for most ills. As I might be right, it is not intelligent to do so, so I collect the data to find a correlating factor, then, as Prof stated, see if there is a causal factor. I would say that you probably blame inner-city youth, welfare, social programs, etc for most things w/o doing 1 oz of research; this methodology is really ridiculous.

Then look up the studies I mentioned yourself, if you want to question methodology. Seeing as how I've provided *DATA* against your *SUPPOSITIONS*, perhaps you may want to reconsider just *WHO* is pulling stuff out of their ass.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[airdvr 210]

I never thought we would allow our children to go thru the same stupidity brought to us by the same people..

Maybe you should research who started the Vietnam war.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I never thought we would allow our children to go thru the same stupidity brought to us by the same people..

Maybe you should research who started the Vietnam war.

Blaming the French now?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

I never thought we would allow our children to go thru the same stupidity brought to us by the same people..

Maybe you should research who started the Vietnam war.

Blaming the French now?

Funny. I know you'd like to go back to 1950 but aid doesn't equal commiting troops to a shooting war. That didn't happen in appreciable numbers until 1962.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I never thought we would allow our children to go thru the same stupidity brought to us by the same people..

Maybe you should research who started the Vietnam war.

Blaming the French now?

Funny. I know you'd like to go back to 1950 but aid doesn't equal commiting troops to a shooting war. That didn't happen in appreciable numbers until 1962.

No troops committed at Dien Bien Phu?

I bet you think WWII started in Dec 1941, and WWI in April 1917, too. Very parochial.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

No troops committed at Dien Bien Phu?

I bet you think WWII started in Dec 1941, and WWI in April 1917, too. Very parochial.

March 30-May 1 - The siege at Dien Bien Phu occurs as nearly 10,000 French soldiers are trapped by 45,000 Viet Minh. French troops soon run out of fresh water and medical supplies.

The French urgently appeal to Washington for help. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff now consider three possible military options: sending American combat troops to the rescue; a massive conventional air strike by B-29 bombers; the use of tactical atomic weapons.

President Eisenhower dismisses the conventional air raid and the nuclear option after getting a strong negative response to such actions from America's chief ally, Britain. Eisenhower also decides against sending U.S. ground troops to rescue the French, citing the likelihood of high casualty rates in the jungles around Dien Bien Phu. No action is taken.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

As has been demonstrated here before I'm not above mistake. However, I was never aware of appreciable number of US troops at Dien Bien Phu.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

No troops committed at Dien Bien Phu?

I bet you think WWII started in Dec 1941, and WWI in April 1917, too. Very parochial.

March 30-May 1 - The siege at Dien Bien Phu occurs as nearly 10,000 French soldiers are trapped by 45,000 Viet Minh. French troops soon run out of fresh water and medical supplies.

The French urgently appeal to Washington for help. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff now consider three possible military options: sending American combat troops to the rescue; a massive conventional air strike by B-29 bombers; the use of tactical atomic weapons.

President Eisenhower dismisses the conventional air raid and the nuclear option after getting a strong negative response to such actions from America's chief ally, Britain. Eisenhower also decides against sending U.S. ground troops to rescue the French, citing the likelihood of high casualty rates in the jungles around Dien Bien Phu. No action is taken.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

As has been demonstrated here before I'm not above mistake. However, I was never aware of appreciable number of US troops at Dien Bien Phu.

Quote

Maybe you should research who started the Vietnam war.

What does your question have to do with US troops? You asked who started the war.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

No troops committed at Dien Bien Phu?

I bet you think WWII started in Dec 1941, and WWI in April 1917, too. Very parochial.

March 30-May 1 - The siege at Dien Bien Phu occurs as nearly 10,000 French soldiers are trapped by 45,000 Viet Minh. French troops soon run out of fresh water and medical supplies.

The French urgently appeal to Washington for help. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff now consider three possible military options: sending American combat troops to the rescue; a massive conventional air strike by B-29 bombers; the use of tactical atomic weapons.

President Eisenhower dismisses the conventional air raid and the nuclear option after getting a strong negative response to such actions from America's chief ally, Britain. Eisenhower also decides against sending U.S. ground troops to rescue the French, citing the likelihood of high casualty rates in the jungles around Dien Bien Phu. No action is taken.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

As has been demonstrated here before I'm not above mistake. However, I was never aware of appreciable number of US troops at Dien Bien Phu.

Quote

Maybe you should research who started the Vietnam war.

What does your question have to do with US troops? You asked who started the war.

I just love it when you split hairs like that. You and everyone else knows what was meant by my statement. I suppose JFK just had to go along with Ike. Bottom line is until 1962 we weren't actively involved in a shooting war and hadn't commited troops en masse.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Seeing as how I've provided *DATA* against your *SUPPOSITIONS*, perhaps you may want to reconsider just *WHO* is pulling stuff out of their ass.

Hmmm … what data was that. I saw that you did post data consistent with his assertions. Did you subsequently provide some data that contradicted that data?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Amazon 7]

Ask yourself.. WHO.... what families in particular have benefited from this war. Think Texican conservatives.( ampng others)
Follow the money.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No troops committed at Dien Bien Phu?

I bet you think WWII started in Dec 1941, and WWI in April 1917, too. Very parochial.

March 30-May 1 - The siege at Dien Bien Phu occurs as nearly 10,000 French soldiers are trapped by 45,000 Viet Minh. French troops soon run out of fresh water and medical supplies.

The French urgently appeal to Washington for help. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff now consider three possible military options: sending American combat troops to the rescue; a massive conventional air strike by B-29 bombers; the use of tactical atomic weapons.

President Eisenhower dismisses the conventional air raid and the nuclear option after getting a strong negative response to such actions from America's chief ally, Britain. Eisenhower also decides against sending U.S. ground troops to rescue the French, citing the likelihood of high casualty rates in the jungles around Dien Bien Phu. No action is taken.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html

As has been demonstrated here before I'm not above mistake. However, I was never aware of appreciable number of US troops at Dien Bien Phu.

Quote

Maybe you should research who started the Vietnam war.

What does your question have to do with US troops? You asked who started the war.

I just love it when you split hairs like that. .

YOU ask the wrong question and somehow it's MY fault?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.