Bad news???

[jj]

Coalition forces have been "50 miles from Bagdad" for almost a day now.

If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can) that would mean that the war is at least close to stalemated, and is now in danger of becoming a war of attrition.

That would be bad, bad, bad. :mad:

If there is anything we can't afford, it's even a short-term stalemate.

[aerocontrols]

This is a joke post, right?

I trust the former military people will disabuse you of your notion that every time an assault stops it's because it has been 'stopped', but if not, you might want to consider why it may not be true.

MattJ

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
This is a joke post, right?

I trust the former military people will disabuse you of your notion that every time an assault stops it's because it has been 'stopped', but if not, you might want to consider why it may not be true.

MattJ

What a classic "knee jerk". Did I say "if we can take that at face value" or not?

There are indeed many reasons to stop, logistics on a very long road under constant attack being ONE really good one. I can personally think of a few others, and I'm hardly "in the know" here.

But, did your knee have to jerk so hard? Did it hurt?

I think a lot of youngsters who don't understand why old farts like me think war is so terrible, are about to find out.

[jj]

Originally posted by sundog
I think a lot of youngsters who don't understand why old farts like me think war is so terrible, are about to find out.

Pardon me if I say that I sincerely hope that you are completely wrong.

I fear you're not. :(

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj


What a classic "knee jerk". Did I say "if we can take that at face value" or not?

Yes, you did.

Why does 'taking it at face value' mean 'stalemate'?

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Yes, you did.

Why does 'taking it at face value' mean 'stalemate'?

Perhaps youd on't understand the subjunctive? Why did you remove the "if"? Perhaps it didn't support your misbegotten, offensive interpretation. Follows the relevant clause:

----
If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can)
----

Just doesn't support your interpretation, does it? Care to try for another selective quote?

The forces HAVE slowed down. There appears to be a sandstorm, this would be a "real good reason". However, it would seem that we're not hearing as much about the pace of the operation as I would prefer to hear.

Then again, if I were about to break out on a wide perimeter, I would hardly warn the bad guys, either, hence my conditional, subjunctive statement.

That's hardly the positive assertion YOU made it out to be.

Would you care to explain to all of us why you misrepresented what I said, and then further selectively quoted in an apparent attempt to support your misrepresentation?

[Troll]

We've had some troops there for a full day. Waiting on more and better weather conditions at minimum. Perhaps also waiting to see how they react when all the forces are there in hopes of playing the psychological game of intimidation. Can't speak for the commanders. But I can say that just because some are stopping where they are, does not mean that is all there will be.

And yes, for those of you that want to say once we try to get inside Baghdad things will slow, the answer is, well duh.

[jj]

Originally posted by Troll
We've had some troops there for a full day. Waiting on more and better weather conditions at minimum. Perhaps also waiting to see how they react when all the forces are there in hopes of playing the psychological game of intimidation. Can't speak for the commanders. But I can say that just because some are stopping where they are, does not mean that is all there will be.

And yes, for those of you that want to say once we try to get inside Baghdad things will slow, the answer is, well duh.

Thank you, that was the kind of discussion I had in mind. Agreed 100% about the urban warfare, of course.

I keep hearing disturbing things about supply lines. My half-brother was an Lt. Col. in the 3rd army at the Bulge. For some reason this makes me very concerned about tanks running out of gas.:(

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj
Would you care to explain to all of us why you misrepresented what I said, and then further selectively quoted in an apparent attempt to support your misrepresentation?

You said:

Coalition forces have been "50 miles from Bagdad" for almost a day now.

This is true.

then:

If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can) that would mean that the war is at least close to stalemated

Now, my question to you is: Why does the 'face value' interpretaion of this event (regardless of whether you take the event at face value or not, which you keep denying that you do, and I never implied you did) imply that the war is close to stalemated?

In reference to the portions of my last reply that you think I took out of context second sentence, (it upsets me as well when people do that to me) I'm sorry, but I thought acknowledging the 'if we can...' portion of the quote in the first sentence supplied the necessary context.

In that context, after acknowledging that you had qualifed the statement, I was asking (as I say above)

Why does the 'face value' interpretaion of this event imply that the war is close to stalemated?

MattJ

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Why does the 'face value' interpretaion of this event imply that the war is close to stalemated?

MattJ

You WERE listening to the first briefings, weren't you?

Helloooooo??????????

I surely HOPE it's not!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj


You WERE listening to the first briefings, weren't you?

Helloooooo??????????

I surely HOPE it's not!


I'm sorry. I don't understand anything about this reply.

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols



I'm sorry. I don't understand anything about this reply.

I'm sure you don't.

One USUALLY compares what people say they are planning to do with what happens, yes?

Btw, on another front, this showed up elsewhere. I don't have a direct cite, so take it with that warning.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/outside/messages/161547.html

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by jj
I'm sure you don't.

I realize that you took offense at my first post, and after trying to re-state myself in a less aggressive manner in the second, I finallly gave you the explanation you asked for and I said I was sorry. Can the insults stop now so we can have a discussion?

Originally posted by jj
One USUALLY compares what people say they are planning to do with what happens, yes?

Certainly. I wasn't aware that anyone had said that we would drive to Baghdad without stopping, (this certainly might have occurred, however) or that a change in plans in one spot on a nation-wide battlefield implied a 'stalemate'. It seems to me that the lead elements of the drive to Baghdad would stop to secure their supply lines and form up for an assault before attacking. That would be the 'face value' interpretation of a 1-day halt in an advance that I would use.

However, if you saw briefings where the people in charge said this wouldn't happen, then we can say at least that something has occured that has caused the allied forces to change their plans, anyway.

MattJ

[jj]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


However, if you saw briefings where the people in charge said this wouldn't happen, then we can say at least that something has occured that has caused the allied forces to change their plans, anyway.

MattJ

That is my impression. On the other hand, like I said, I'd hardly tell the bad guys when we were coming if we were getting ready for an all-sector breakout, too.

I might even act a bit wimpy, instead, if I thought I could sucker them...

I am a bit concerned that it appears that things have diverged a bit from the original intent.

(edited to add: Oh, and I apologize for the grumpiness. Recently, I've grown unwillingly accustomed to people "restating" what I've said in manipulative fashions.)

[Jocko]

Originally posted by jj
Coalition forces have been "50 miles from Bagdad" for almost a day now.

If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can) that would mean that the war is at least close to stalemated, and is now in danger of becoming a war of attrition.

That would be bad, bad, bad. :mad:

If there is anything we can't afford, it's even a short-term stalemate.

This is the most absurd thing I've ever read here. You're shocked that it may take as long as a week to occupy a nation the size of California?

THEY"RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A SANDSTORM, ya goof. That tends to slow things down. Plus you have coalition aircraft softening up the Republican Guard's forwards positions. Then you have the possibility of this invisible "line in the sand" that will trigger a chemical assualt when crossed.

There is nothing to suggest stalemate. You give the Iraqis far too much credit. They're expending more bullets on their own deserters than on credible defense against the coalition.

Jeez- do you assume basball season's over every time you see a rain delay?

[jj]

Originally posted by Jocko



Jeez- do you assume basball season's over every time you see a rain delay?

Another failure to understand the subjunctive, I see.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by jj
Coalition forces have been "50 miles from Bagdad" for almost a day now.

If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can) that would mean that the war is at least close to stalemated, and is now in danger of becoming a war of attrition.

That would be bad, bad, bad. :mad:

If there is anything we can't afford, it's even a short-term stalemate.

Ooh...a real quagmire eh? So it's been less than a week, and in your mind it's close to being a "war of attrition"??? What planet are you on?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by jj


Another failure to understand the subjunctive, I see.

Look, pinhead, the subjunctive doesn't enter into it. You said, "If we can take that at face value," with the implied understanding that we can (or at least YOU can).

I, and several others, have pointed out that you can't. Your premise is fallcious, and any debate proceeding from that premise is equally fallacious. Rather than waste time on a BS argument proceeding from your BS premise, I wasted my time pointing out your BS premise to your BS self.

Do not presume to hector me on the parts of speech, language or semantics. You would find yourself quickly out of your depth.

[Thumper]

JJ, what's a subjunctive? And why does it have any bearing on what you implied in your statement?

[jj]

Originally posted by Jocko


Look, pinhead, the subjunctive doesn't enter into it. You said, "If we can take that at face value," with the implied understanding that we can (or at least YOU can).
.


In other words, instead of reply to what I said, you reply to what you want to reply to.

When you wish to discuss what's been said, get back to me.

P.S. Your threat about "language", etc, is taken just as it was intended, as an attempt to extort conformance from me. It won't work. Your implied professional insult is noted as well. It will not be forgotten.

Who, now, engages in extortion in open discussions? What kind of society does that? Who are you defending? What way of life do you support?

Once more, the relevant part of my statement:
---
If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can)
---

[jj]

Originally posted by Thumper
JJ, what's a subjunctive? And why does it have any bearing on what you implied in your statement?

Yi yi yi.

Please go look at any grammar web site.

[jj]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Ooh...a real quagmire eh? So it's been less than a week, and in your mind it's close to being a "war of attrition"??? What planet are you on?

I expected better from you. Please learn how the subjunctive works, and what the "and I don't know that we can" might imply before your knee jerks so hard the next time.

Your reflexive, unthinking behavior is quite revealing.

[Thumper]

I'd prefer you answered my two questions in open forum for all to see, if you are able.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by jj
Coalition forces have been "50 miles from Bagdad" for almost a day now.

If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can) that would mean that the war is at least close to stalemated, and is now in danger of becoming a war of attrition.

That would be bad, bad, bad. :mad:

If there is anything we can't afford, it's even a short-term stalemate.

Premature speculation at best.

Also, one word that may be relevant to the situation:

Sandstorm.

[jj]

Originally posted by Doubt


Premature speculation at best.

Also, one word that may be relevant to the situation:

Sandstorm.

Actually, not even speculation, and yes, there is a sandstorm going on, which is surely part of the problem.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Thumper
I'd prefer you answered my two questions in open forum for all to see, if you are able.

I think it's clear that he'll do anything to turn this into a matter of semantics, in hopes that we'll overlook his naive and needlessly alarmist (not to mention inaccurate) premise.

[Pyrrho]

I sincerely hope that nobody has had the expectation that the coalition forces were simply going to drive in to Baghdad and grab Saddam Hussein by the nape of the neck. They've been saying from the beginning that there could be tough urban warfare. That the coalition forces have been able to reach Baghdad as quickly as they have is a remarkable achievement. They're doing an excellent job; I see no stalemate.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by jj



In other words, instead of reply to what I said, you reply to what you want to reply to.

When you wish to discuss what's been said, get back to me.

P.S. Your threat about "language", etc, is taken just as it was intended, ...[blah blah blah...]

Once more, the relevant part of my statement:
---
If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can)
---

Fine. Let's examine the subjunctive mood.

(Gram.), that form of a verb which express the action or state not as a fact, but only as a conception of the mind still contingent and dependent. It is commonly subjoined, or added as subordinate, to some other verb, and in English is often connected with it by if, that, though, lest, unless, except, until, etc., as in the following sentence: ``If there were no honey, they [bees] would have no object in visiting the flower.'' --Lubbock. In some languages, as in Latin and Greek, the subjunctive is often independent of any other verb, being used in wishes, commands, exhortations, etc.

Your point is well taken.
It's also irrelevant.
The basis for the hypothetical you pose is fallacious because it's obviously not true. You may as well hypothesize about what color the sky is. Grammatical construction alone does not a hypotehtical situation make.

As in, "American forces have been 50 miles from Baghdad for over a day now. If this is to be taken at face value, then what color flowers will bloom in my garden this year?"

Hypothetical, and based on faulty premises.

Here's another: "If you continue to cop such an attitude when people point out holes in your premises (couched in the subjunctive mood or not), will your wife continue to bang the milkman?"

Edited to fix a grammatical problem, in hopes it will assist JJ in staying on track.

[Thumper]

Oooooohhhhh! I get what the subjunctive is now... It's a way to say something wrong and inflamatory without saying anything wrong or inflamatory.

Heh heh heh

[Thumper]

oh and dannnng!! Wish I were the milkman. =)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jj

I keep hearing disturbing things about supply lines.


For instance?:confused:

Originally posted by Diogenes



For instance?:confused:

Pull your cap up over your eyes and read some news. :D There are widespread reports that the front line is moving faster than it can be supplied at this moment, and widespread speculation that we are leaving the supply lines vulnerable by bypassing enemy forces.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by sundog


Pull your cap up over your eyes and read some news. :D There are widespread reports that the front line is moving faster than it can be supplied at this moment, and widespread speculation that we are leaving the supply lines vulnerable by bypassing enemy forces.

If the rumors are so widespread, why haven't I seen anything from the media about it? Do you have any links? I can't find any mention at all.

Originally posted by Jocko


If the rumors are so widespread, why haven't I seen anything from the media about it? Do you have any links? I can't find any mention at all.

I honestly don't remember where I heard it, sorry. All these sources are getting mixed in my mind. I do remember a story that some tanks were only half full of gas because they were moving so fast ahead of supply lines.

I will try to find a link, but I have heard this discussed several times over the last day.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by sundog


I honestly don't remember where I heard it, sorry. All these sources are getting mixed in my mind. I do remember a story that some tanks were only half full of gas because they were moving so fast ahead of supply lines.

I will try to find a link, but I have heard this discussed several times over the last day.

I heard about that too. But I hardly think that a pause waiting for gas adds up to a halt in the general advance. If you ask me, it might be time to slow things down a little bit anyway.

The strategy of being on Saddam's doorstep much sooner than he could have anticipated seems to have worked, though. They'll need to sit back and let the bombers and A-10's get first crack at the fortifications.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by sundog


I honestly don't remember where I heard it, sorry. All these sources are getting mixed in my mind. I do remember a story that some tanks were only half full of gas because they were moving so fast ahead of supply lines.

I will try to find a link, but I have heard this discussed several times over the last day.

Well, IF you could read German - dang, there it is again :D - here (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,241941,00.html) would be a place to start.

Zee

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by sundog


Pull your cap up over your eyes and read some news. :D There are widespread reports that the front line is moving faster than it can be supplied at this moment, and widespread speculation that we are leaving the supply lines vulnerable by bypassing enemy forces.

:D I would say ' speculation' is the key word here....


When those tanks run out of gas, I would suspect the supplies will manage to catch up...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jocko


I heard about that too. But I hardly think that a pause waiting for gas adds up to a halt in the general advance. If you ask me, it might be time to slow things down a little bit anyway.



It's not necessarily that they are waiting for gas to fill up, but waiting to stockpile a lot of supplies so that they are pretty much running on surplus.

When trying to take the capital, you don't want to be running on the edge of capability. You want a fully stocked cabinet when the Super Bowl starts. You don't want to have to run to the store when you run out of chips and dip on the dining room table.

Originally posted by Diogenes


:D I would say ' speculation' is the key word here....


When those tanks run out of gas, I would suspect the supplies will manage to catch up...

Wow, glad YOU'RE not running things. :D

It's more than JUST idle speculation. It's being blamed for some of the casualties, and there is no doubt that the lines are not as well defended as we could wish, with enemy forces still able to attack from that flank. The briefing today said that steps were being taken to beef up the protection.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by sundog


Wow, glad YOU'RE not running things. :D

It's more than JUST idle speculation. It's being blamed for some of the casualties, and there is no doubt that the lines are not as well defended as we could wish, with enemy forces still able to attack from that flank. The briefing today said that steps were being taken to beef up the protection.

I know there are problems, ( none that won't be overcome ) but I think some of the pictures the media are painting, are total crap...

Example...

Headline from MSNBC
U.S. launches air raid in Afghanistan (http://www.msnbc.com/news/887895_asp.htm?0cv=CB20)

Lead sentence..
Hundreds of U.S. soldiers launched an air assault Tuesday .......

Do these U.S. soldiers have some new secret ' Jet Packs' we haven't been told about, or are they levitating, a' la' PsiTech?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by jj
Coalition forces have been "50 miles from Bagdad" for almost a day now.

If we can take that at face value (and I don't know that we can) that would mean that the war is at least close to stalemated, and is now in danger of becoming a war of attrition.

That would be bad, bad, bad. :mad:

If there is anything we can't afford, it's even a short-term stalemate.

i read there is a really bad sand storm that won't clear till thursday.

the end result won't be in doubt. just how 'messy' it gets.

[jj]

Originally posted by Thumper
I'd prefer you answered my two questions in open forum for all to see, if you are able.

I see that you only asked one potentially real question and one rhetorical one.

If you can't find "subjunctive", well, go do a web search.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jocko


I think it's clear that he'll do anything to turn this into a matter of semantics, in hopes that we'll overlook his naive and needlessly alarmist (not to mention inaccurate) premise.

I see that you'll do anything to hide your misleading summary of what I said.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jocko


As in, "American forces have been 50 miles from Baghdad for over a day now. If this is to be taken at face value, then what color flowers will bloom in my garden this year?"



As usual, failure to respond to what was said. Your knee really does need to stop jerking.

This is a somewhat fascinatingly annoying experiment in watching people make knee-jerk suppositions and straw men and then light them on fire.

It wasn't supposed to be that. I see somebody said "sandstorm until thursday". You know what? THAT is a substantive reply.

[jj]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


i read there is a really bad sand storm that won't clear till thursday.

the end result won't be in doubt. just how 'messy' it gets.

Thank you for the substantive reply. I also agree that the end is pretty much pre-ordained, I just wonder how messy it WILL be.

That is, before we get to hand to hand in Bagdad. That will be unpleasant no matter what. I fear it has to be, but that won't make it nice.

Saaaaandstoooorm. SAAAANDSTOOOOORM!!!

[schplurg]

I heard on the radio a few minutes ago (sorry no link or nuthin) from "military sources" that the troops are held up and that strategies are changing. That the sandstorm is a reason, though they are trying to take advantage of it and move undetected in it.

Also they are concerned about the enemy they passed on the way there. They are supposedly going to go back and clean up some of that mess, which they say would be taken care of in a manner of days.

AAAH! Here's a link:

New Strategy (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/international/worldspecial/26STRA.html?ex=1049259600&en=9942ec3bb926c914&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)

I'm glad we all know the coalition's strategy now :rolleyes: Who knows what's true anyways, but it sounds reasonable.

[EvilYeti]

The battlefield is a dynamic environment, it would be foolish to continue the charge to Baghdad regardless of current circumstances. We are slowing down to save lives, both ours and Iraqis.

Remember, we also have a humanitarian relief operation to stage, which Saddam's troops are doing their damndest to sabotage. If we had no concern about the Iraqi civillians we would have been in Baghdad a week ago, after bombing the entire city to cinders of course.

If we are still fifty miles from Baghdad a month from now, then I would say we are in trouble.

[jj]

Something that finally emerged in our newspapers here is that we're building up on one side of a pass/gap and waiting for our flanking forces to get into position.

This would seem to be most wondrously sane to me. The sandstorm, in this light and given our GPS capability, might be a blessing in disguise.

I do, though, wonder why all of the military experts who sprang forth to illicitly suborn things I didn't say didn't mention that?