> > It was something like this: they took all regional males who would be > 16 or older and used some percentage of the current regional male > population that was based on the level of insurgents they're seeing. > From that they calculated a rough number of how many males they could > expect would take radical action.
You think they really came up with 1 BILLION people, or 1/6 of the world's population, that they could expect to take radical action..........that's a ridiculous number that just can't be right. > > Of course it's a very rough number, but I think we've seen our > government's estimates dwarfed by the amount of resistance currently > happening. I dunno what our government's estimates were. Maybe they expected to lose a few thousand soldiers during the rebuilding phase. I doubt it. > The bottom line is not the number, but the implication: > there's a lot of people we'd have to kill and the amount to date is a > grain of sand on the beach. You can't win this sort of thing by killing the right number of people. Now that I mention it....I got no idea HOW you win this sort of thing. > > The "they can't sustain these losses argument" was used in Vietnam > too. We lost. I don't think i've heard that argument used in this scenario, but if it is, it's ridiculous. How can you make this type of argument against an enemy who's blowing themselves up in the act of killing you? They obviously sustain losses just fine. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:169530 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
