Jump to content

Our "third world" Power Grid


Manscape
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

I remember that major power outage swept across the northeast Thursday, August 14, 2003 when one major voice referred to our national power grid as "third world" condition. I wondered why American leadership had all this money to coddle Israel's apartheid, corrupt any number of foreign sovereignties and build the U.S. military into a ridiculous monstrosity.........while ignoring the civil infrastructure of the nation.........

President Obama campaigned on creating "green" jobs and dealing with the dilapidated U.S. power grid........

It's still early and the president is still new, and despite the bellowings of a dishonest and increasingly unstable GOP opposition who would have us all believe that matters of RE-BUILDING ROME would take a mere month or two (unless a repub was in the White House!)........the President's progress according to Politifact is rather steady. Imagine if these deadender jerkoffs were replaced by decent people who, though their candidate lost, would not act to sabotage in financed lies and childish media spectacle the President's effort to stop the bleeding of our nation! Repair and remediation may go a little further, a little faster.........

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Obama putting $3.4B toward a 'smart' power grid

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – 20 mins ago

ARCADIA, Fla. – President Barack Obama made a pitch for renewable energy Tuesday, announcing $3.4 billion in government support for 100 projects aimed at modernizing the nation's power grid.

Touring a field of solar energy panels in west-central Florida, the president urged greater use of several technologies to make America's power transmission system more efficient and better suited to the digital age. The projects include installing "smart" electric meters in homes, automating utility substations, and installing thousands of new digital transformers and grid sensors.

"There's something big happening in America in terms of creating a clean-energy economy," Obama said, although he added there is much more to be done.

He likened the effort to the ambitious development of the national highway system 50 years ago. He said modernization would lead to a "smarter, stronger and more secure electric grid."

Under muggy skies, Obama toured the DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, which is designed to generate enough energy for about 3,000 residential customers of the utility FPL. It is the nation's largest photovoltaic electricity facility.

Obama said a modern grid could give consumers better control over their electricity usage and costs, and spur development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

The $3.4 billion in grants from the government's January economic stimulus program will be matched by $4.7 billion in private investments. The smallest grant will be $400,000 and the largest $200 million.

"We have a very antiquated (electric grid) system in our country," Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate change, told reporters. "The current system is outdated, it's dilapidated."

Matt Rogers, the Energy Department official involved in the program, said the 100 projects were selected from 400 proposed. The money will be distributed over the next two months and the work is expected to be done over the next one to three years, he said.

Even as Obama pitched more efficient and renewable energy use, his trip to Arcadia made it clear that old habits and dependencies die hard. He arrived in a motorcade of gas-guzzling SUVs. While waiting for the motorcade to get started, several vans kept their engines running to provide air conditioning for occupants escaping a hot Florida sun.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been at odds with Obama over health care, energy and other matters, praised the clean-energy initiative.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_...bama_smart_grid

Endnote: I appreciate the author's point of irony concerning gas guzzling SUVs and idling vans for air-conditioning purposes and warn against jerkoffs that would discount/ignore the central news of this report and hiss about Obama using his motor convoy as such, vehicles ANYONE leading a nation would properly require for such a field trip. When jingoistic wars for profit are banned and with no work for making cluster-bombs and depleted uranium WMD, etc, maybe weapons makers will begin to concentrate their talents on clean energy solutions to keeping people in transit cool and warm as needed. The men and women in our trucking industry, and everyone else, would celebrate that endeavor. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

I remember that major power outage swept across the northeast Thursday, August 14, 2003 when one major voice referred to our national power grid as "third world" condition. I wondered why American leadership had all this money to coddle Israel's apartheid, corrupt any number of foreign sovereignties and build the U.S. military into a ridiculous monstrosity.........while ignoring the civil infrastructure of the nation.........

President Obama campaigned on creating "green" jobs and dealing with the dilapidated U.S. power grid........

It's still early and the president is still new, and despite the bellowings of a dishonest and increasingly unstable GOP opposition who would have us all believe that matters of RE-BUILDING ROME would take a mere month or two (unless a repub was in the White House!)........the President's progress according to Politifact is rather steady. Imagine if these deadender jerkoffs were replaced by decent people who, though their candidate lost, would not act to sabotage in financed lies and childish media spectacle the President's effort to stop the bleeding of our nation! Repair and remediation may go a little further, a little faster.........

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Obama putting $3.4B toward a 'smart' power grid

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – 20 mins ago

ARCADIA, Fla. – President Barack Obama made a pitch for renewable energy Tuesday, announcing $3.4 billion in government support for 100 projects aimed at modernizing the nation's power grid.

Touring a field of solar energy panels in west-central Florida, the president urged greater use of several technologies to make America's power transmission system more efficient and better suited to the digital age. The projects include installing "smart" electric meters in homes, automating utility substations, and installing thousands of new digital transformers and grid sensors.

"There's something big happening in America in terms of creating a clean-energy economy," Obama said, although he added there is much more to be done.

He likened the effort to the ambitious development of the national highway system 50 years ago. He said modernization would lead to a "smarter, stronger and more secure electric grid."

Under muggy skies, Obama toured the DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, which is designed to generate enough energy for about 3,000 residential customers of the utility FPL. It is the nation's largest photovoltaic electricity facility.

Obama said a modern grid could give consumers better control over their electricity usage and costs, and spur development of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

The $3.4 billion in grants from the government's January economic stimulus program will be matched by $4.7 billion in private investments. The smallest grant will be $400,000 and the largest $200 million.

"We have a very antiquated (electric grid) system in our country," Carol Browner, assistant to the president for energy and climate change, told reporters. "The current system is outdated, it's dilapidated."

Matt Rogers, the Energy Department official involved in the program, said the 100 projects were selected from 400 proposed. The money will be distributed over the next two months and the work is expected to be done over the next one to three years, he said.

Even as Obama pitched more efficient and renewable energy use, his trip to Arcadia made it clear that old habits and dependencies die hard. He arrived in a motorcade of gas-guzzling SUVs. While waiting for the motorcade to get started, several vans kept their engines running to provide air conditioning for occupants escaping a hot Florida sun.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been at odds with Obama over health care, energy and other matters, praised the clean-energy initiative.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_...bama_smart_grid

Endnote: I appreciate the author's point of irony concerning gas guzzling SUVs and idling vans for air-conditioning purposes and warn against jerkoffs that would discount/ignore the central news of this report and hiss about Obama using his motor convoy as such, vehicles ANYONE leading a nation would properly require for such a field trip. When jingoistic wars for profit are banned and with no work for making cluster-bombs and depleted uranium WMD, etc, maybe weapons makers will begin to concentrate their talents on clean energy solutions to keeping people in transit cool and warm as needed. The men and women in our trucking industry, and everyone else, would celebrate that endeavor. :angry:

I'll bet you get a tingle down your leg whenever you see the Anointed One on TV. A recent poll indicates only 43% of voters would vote for Obama's re-election if the 2012 election was held today, that number's dropped 10% in the last 6 months.

Instead of SUV convoys to Florida I'd like to see him give McCrystal the troops he's asked for close to 2 months ago, we lost over 20 soldiers this past week.

But hey, he's got priorities, golf, basketball, public options, photo-ops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you get a tingle down your leg whenever you see the Anointed One on TV. A recent poll indicates only 43% of voters would vote for Obama's re-election if the 2012 election was held today, that number's dropped 10% in the last 6 months.

Instead of SUV convoys to Florida I'd like to see him give McCrystal the troops he's asked for close to 2 months ago, we lost over 20 soldiers this past week.

But hey, he's got priorities, golf, basketball, public options, photo-ops.

Well Tumor4u......you nuzzle up to your "Fix Noose" crystal ball and your flaccid political party of fear and war and hate. Meanwhile, the new progressive leadership of America will see that President Obama has the support he needs to repair the epic damage you and your goombas wrought upon the nation and the world.

Start googling bloodpressure meds, deadender.......your hate-parade will be expensive. :P

"DON'T" SUBSTANTIALLY ENGAGE THE THEME OF THE NEWS REPORT POSTED HERE THAT YOU CONVENIENTLY RUN FROM INSTEAD HISSING AT THE PRESIDENT WITH LIES SUGGESTING HE'S LAZY LIKE BUSH. I know a little pip of a swiftboater must post with the "whack-a-mole" style, last word oneupmanship, going off topic be damned..........

For the rest of you deadenders that think Obama's inherited, wildly BUSH miss-managed mess in Afghanistan is ice cream easy to fix.......here's a hint:

(apologies for the change of topic within one thread, but you know how Tumor4u operates)

AP IMPACT: Troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1

By SLOBODAN LEKIC (AP) – 20 hours ago

BRUSSELS — There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory.

Now, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan is asking for tens of thousands more troops to stem the escalating insurgency, raising the question of how many more troops it would take to succeed.

The commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the extra forces are needed to implement a new strategy that focuses on protecting civilians and depriving the militants of popular support in a country where tribal militias may be Taliban today and farmers tomorrow.

The White House said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has nearly finished gathering information and advice on how to proceed in Afghanistan, where bombings killed eight more American troops. With October now the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the war, many experts question the need for more troops.

"The U.S. and its allies already have ample numbers and firepower to annihilate the Taliban, if only the Taliban would cooperate by standing still and allowing us to bomb them to smithereens," said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, and one-time platoon leader in Vietnam.

"But the insurgents are conducting the war in ways that do not play to (allied) strengths."

The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000. Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove counterproductive.

"It's impossible to regain the initiative by introducing more foreign forces, which will only breed more resentment and more recruits for the enemy," he said. "The Soviets tried the exact same thing in Afghanistan in the 1980s with disastrous results."

McChrystal's defenders say the U.S. has learned from Soviets' mistakes. At his instruction, NATO troops are increasingly abandoning heavy-handed tactics.

"In the end this (conflict) cannot be solved by military means alone, and in that sense a precise figure of Taliban fighters is not the point," said NATO spokesman James Appathurai.

The U.S. says it's already adjusting its strategy to shift the focus from hunting down and killing Taliban fighters to protecting civilians — in some cases allowing insurgent units to remain untouched if they are not deemed an imminent threat.

McChrystal has also insisted that ground commanders use airpower only as a last resort and when they are absolutely sure civilians are not at risk. As a career Special Forces officer, McChrystal is likely to use small maneuverable units rather than large, heavily armed formations.

Also, experts say guerrilla numbers are not the most important factor in a counterinsurgency campaign. Instead, the number of U.S. troops depends on more complex calculations, including the size and location of the population, and the extent of the training effort for the Afghan security forces.

Appathurai said the goals of the Afghanistan strategy are key to determining how many forces are required. The goal is to have enough troops in populated areas to protect the citizenry and to provide the forces needed to train the Afghans.

In addition, while there may be as many as 25,000 Taliban, it is not a monolithic group like an army, with a clear chain of command that has to be confronted soldier for soldier. Instead, it is a scattered and diverse mix of insurgents, some more ideologically motivated than others.

There are currently about 104,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 Americans. Afghan security forces consist of 94,000 troops supported by a similar number of police, bringing the total Allied force to close to 300,000 members.

The 12-1 ratio may be misleading because two-thirds of the Allied force is made up of Afghans, who lack the training and experience. The Taliban usually fight in small, cohesive units made up of friends and fellow clansmen. A more meaningful ratio, then, might be 4-1 or 5-1.

Historically in guerrilla wars, security forces have usually had at least a 3-1 advantage.

At the height of the U.S. ground involvement in South Vietnam in 1968, the 1.2 million American troops and their allies outnumbered the Communist guerrillas by about 4-1. French forces in the 1945-54 Indochina war numbered about 400,000 men, only a slight numerical advantage against the rebels.

In a more recent campaign, Russia's Chechen war in 1999-2000, Russian troops held a 4-1 advantage over the insurgents.

Publicly, NATO and U.S. officials have been tightlipped about Taliban strength, arguing the guerrillas, split into a number of semiautonomous factions, regularly slip in and out of Afghanistan from Pakistan — making numbers a matter of guesswork.

But several officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels say the alliance does have reasonably accurate estimates of the number of enemy combatants its troops are facing in Afghanistan.

"The internal figure used for planning purposes is 20,000 fighters, with several more thousand auxiliaries — mainly members of tribal militias, clans, and semi-criminal gangs," said a senior officer based at NATO headquarters in Brussels. He asked not to be identified under standing regulations.

Another senior official — a representative of a non-NATO nation based at alliance headquarters — gave a similar number.

This official added that enemy numbers varied widely over time, depending on the season and other factors. "When the poppy is good, they stay home. When the poppy is bad, they take up guns," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Recent U.S. government estimates have also put the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan at about 25,000.

Sometimes remaining small gives guerrillas certain advantages. British forces in Northern Ireland found it relatively easy to monitor and penetrate the Irish Republican Army when its ranks were swollen in the 1970s, but had a tougher time once the IRA slashed staff and regrouped into secretive four-person units.

Some analysts suggest that a NATO force much larger than the one under consideration would be needed to subdue the Taliban.

"The ratio of friendly to enemy forces would be a crucial aspect only if you could actually get at the enemy. But with an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms and hides among the population, that's very hard to do," said retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq in 2007-2008.

"The crucial aspect in this case is the ratio of security force to population — this is much more relevant," he said. "This would require one security person to every 50 people. In a country of about 32 million, this means about 600,000 security personnel would be needed to clamp it down."

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor in Washington and Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin, Ireland, contributed to this report.

Guess what? Afghanistan is lost. It always WAS lost. We've learned NYEMA NYITZ from Vietnam or from the Soviet Union's folly in A-ghan. We haven't the additional troops nor the money to pour into A-ghan but because of dangerous buffoons in the pentagon and the deadenders that cheer them, it remains a lunatic's option.........

The one difference between A-ghanistan and Vietnam is that the mighty USA today is a listing ship in heavy seas. Rambo nitwits would have us with a sparking, short-circuited powergrid at home, all the other American infrastructure delinquencies, people losing their homes from healthcare bills and job losses AND ALL THE OTHER DOMESTIC FESTERINGS.......yet ramp up the mess in A-ghan!!

Think slowly you televison driven nudniks when you hiss the President about his decision in Afghanistan (and the only decision these jerkoffs would approve is more US lives to be sent to the hopeless grind in A-ghan!)........

No matter how many U.S. troops get sent to A-ghan......no matter how many bombs dropped.....no matter how long we stay.......it will end a disaster for the USA........

How smug and obsolete to think otherwise! :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you get a tingle down your leg whenever you see the Anointed One on TV. A recent poll indicates only 43% of voters would vote for Obama's re-election if the 2012 election was held today, that number's dropped 10% in the last 6 months.

Instead of SUV convoys to Florida I'd like to see him give McCrystal the troops he's asked for close to 2 months ago, we lost over 20 soldiers this past week.

But hey, he's got priorities, golf, basketball, public options, photo-ops.

You're clinging to this talking point like it's your signed first edition of "Who's Looking Out for You." Listen, Obama is F**KING up. The fact that American lives hang in the balance puts a lot of pressure on the president to make a decision. More troops died in Afghanistan this month than any since the war broke out. However, Obama needs to know if he has a dependable ally in Afghanistan before he can up the number of troops. It's, unfortunately, a wait and see decision. He can't avoid criticism for this, becuase clearly he should have dealt with Afghanistan earlier this year. Who left that country a mess though? Who did he inherit this shithole from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you get a tingle down your leg whenever you see the Anointed One on TV. A recent poll indicates only 43% of voters would vote for Obama's re-election if the 2012 election was held today, that number's dropped 10% in the last 6 months.

Instead of SUV convoys to Florida I'd like to see him give McCrystal the troops he's asked for close to 2 months ago, we lost over 20 soldiers this past week.

But hey, he's got priorities, golf, basketball, public options, photo-ops.

For once in your life, pay attention to the things that matter. Energy is one of the most important components of our economy and our way of life. Obama is proposing an intelligent investment in our energy infrastructure so that we can secure our future, both economically and in terms of our quality of life.

That's way too complicated for you, isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you get a tingle down your leg whenever you see the Anointed One on TV. A recent poll indicates only 43% of voters would vote for Obama's re-election if the 2012 election was held today, that number's dropped 10% in the last 6 months.

Instead of SUV convoys to Florida I'd like to see him give McCrystal the troops he's asked for close to 2 months ago, we lost over 20 soldiers this past week.

But hey, he's got priorities, golf, basketball, public options, photo-ops.

The public option should be a priority. As far as a little recreation, so what . He's not going back to his "ranch" for a series of record setting presidential vacations. The infrastructure should be a priority. If you have a problem with that just because your guys didn't win then you truly are the dickehead that we have all suspected you to be. Grow up 2smart, somethings are just as important as war and killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The public option should be a priority. As far as a little recreation, so what . He's not going back to his "ranch" for a series of record setting presidential vacations. The infrastructure should be a priority. If you have a problem with that just because your guys didn't win then you truly are the dickehead that we have all suspected you to be. Grow up 2smart, somethings are just as important as war and killing.

Strongly disagree about the public option. Energy however, should be a priority, I agree. But when you spend over $700 billion to bail out irresponsible companies, and propose over a trillion dollars for health care, (by some estimates, truly no one knows what it will cost, its all best guess); you'll forgive me if I'm not overwhelmed by him spending a "mere" $3.4 billion on a smart grid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Well Tumor4u......you nuzzle up to your "Fix Noose" crystal ball and your flaccid political party of fear and war and hate. Meanwhile, the new progressive leadership of America will see that President Obama has the support he needs to repair the epic damage you and your goombas wrought upon the nation and the world.

Start googling bloodpressure meds, deadender.......your hate-parade will be expensive. :P

"DON'T" SUBSTANTIALLY ENGAGE THE THEME OF THE NEWS REPORT POSTED HERE THAT YOU CONVENIENTLY RUN FROM INSTEAD HISSING AT THE PRESIDENT WITH LIES SUGGESTING HE'S LAZY LIKE BUSH. I know a little pip of a swiftboater must post with the "whack-a-mole" style, last word oneupmanship, going off topic be damned..........

For the rest of you deadenders that think Obama's inherited, wildly BUSH miss-managed mess in Afghanistan is ice cream easy to fix.......here's a hint:

(apologies for the change of topic within one thread, but you know how Tumor4u operates)

AP IMPACT: Troops already outnumber Taliban 12-1

By SLOBODAN LEKIC (AP) – 20 hours ago

BRUSSELS — There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory.

Now, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan is asking for tens of thousands more troops to stem the escalating insurgency, raising the question of how many more troops it would take to succeed.

The commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the extra forces are needed to implement a new strategy that focuses on protecting civilians and depriving the militants of popular support in a country where tribal militias may be Taliban today and farmers tomorrow.

The White House said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has nearly finished gathering information and advice on how to proceed in Afghanistan, where bombings killed eight more American troops. With October now the deadliest month for U.S. forces in the war, many experts question the need for more troops.

"The U.S. and its allies already have ample numbers and firepower to annihilate the Taliban, if only the Taliban would cooperate by standing still and allowing us to bomb them to smithereens," said Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations and history at Boston University, and one-time platoon leader in Vietnam.

"But the insurgents are conducting the war in ways that do not play to (allied) strengths."

The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000. Ljubomir Stojadinovic, a military analyst and guerrilla warfare expert from Serbia, said that although McChrystal's reinforcements would lift the ratio to 20-1 or more, they would prove counterproductive.

"It's impossible to regain the initiative by introducing more foreign forces, which will only breed more resentment and more recruits for the enemy," he said. "The Soviets tried the exact same thing in Afghanistan in the 1980s with disastrous results."

McChrystal's defenders say the U.S. has learned from Soviets' mistakes. At his instruction, NATO troops are increasingly abandoning heavy-handed tactics.

"In the end this (conflict) cannot be solved by military means alone, and in that sense a precise figure of Taliban fighters is not the point," said NATO spokesman James Appathurai.

The U.S. says it's already adjusting its strategy to shift the focus from hunting down and killing Taliban fighters to protecting civilians — in some cases allowing insurgent units to remain untouched if they are not deemed an imminent threat.

McChrystal has also insisted that ground commanders use airpower only as a last resort and when they are absolutely sure civilians are not at risk. As a career Special Forces officer, McChrystal is likely to use small maneuverable units rather than large, heavily armed formations.

Also, experts say guerrilla numbers are not the most important factor in a counterinsurgency campaign. Instead, the number of U.S. troops depends on more complex calculations, including the size and location of the population, and the extent of the training effort for the Afghan security forces.

Appathurai said the goals of the Afghanistan strategy are key to determining how many forces are required. The goal is to have enough troops in populated areas to protect the citizenry and to provide the forces needed to train the Afghans.

In addition, while there may be as many as 25,000 Taliban, it is not a monolithic group like an army, with a clear chain of command that has to be confronted soldier for soldier. Instead, it is a scattered and diverse mix of insurgents, some more ideologically motivated than others.

There are currently about 104,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including about 68,000 Americans. Afghan security forces consist of 94,000 troops supported by a similar number of police, bringing the total Allied force to close to 300,000 members.

The 12-1 ratio may be misleading because two-thirds of the Allied force is made up of Afghans, who lack the training and experience. The Taliban usually fight in small, cohesive units made up of friends and fellow clansmen. A more meaningful ratio, then, might be 4-1 or 5-1.

Historically in guerrilla wars, security forces have usually had at least a 3-1 advantage.

At the height of the U.S. ground involvement in South Vietnam in 1968, the 1.2 million American troops and their allies outnumbered the Communist guerrillas by about 4-1. French forces in the 1945-54 Indochina war numbered about 400,000 men, only a slight numerical advantage against the rebels.

In a more recent campaign, Russia's Chechen war in 1999-2000, Russian troops held a 4-1 advantage over the insurgents.

Publicly, NATO and U.S. officials have been tightlipped about Taliban strength, arguing the guerrillas, split into a number of semiautonomous factions, regularly slip in and out of Afghanistan from Pakistan — making numbers a matter of guesswork.

But several officers at NATO headquarters in Brussels say the alliance does have reasonably accurate estimates of the number of enemy combatants its troops are facing in Afghanistan.

"The internal figure used for planning purposes is 20,000 fighters, with several more thousand auxiliaries — mainly members of tribal militias, clans, and semi-criminal gangs," said a senior officer based at NATO headquarters in Brussels. He asked not to be identified under standing regulations.

Another senior official — a representative of a non-NATO nation based at alliance headquarters — gave a similar number.

This official added that enemy numbers varied widely over time, depending on the season and other factors. "When the poppy is good, they stay home. When the poppy is bad, they take up guns," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Recent U.S. government estimates have also put the number of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan at about 25,000.

Sometimes remaining small gives guerrillas certain advantages. British forces in Northern Ireland found it relatively easy to monitor and penetrate the Irish Republican Army when its ranks were swollen in the 1970s, but had a tougher time once the IRA slashed staff and regrouped into secretive four-person units.

Some analysts suggest that a NATO force much larger than the one under consideration would be needed to subdue the Taliban.

"The ratio of friendly to enemy forces would be a crucial aspect only if you could actually get at the enemy. But with an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms and hides among the population, that's very hard to do," said retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq in 2007-2008.

"The crucial aspect in this case is the ratio of security force to population — this is much more relevant," he said. "This would require one security person to every 50 people. In a country of about 32 million, this means about 600,000 security personnel would be needed to clamp it down."

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor in Washington and Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin, Ireland, contributed to this report.

Guess what? Afghanistan is lost. It always WAS lost. We've learned NYEMA NYITZ from Vietnam or from the Soviet Union's folly in A-ghan. We haven't the additional troops nor the money to pour into A-ghan but because of dangerous buffoons in the pentagon and the deadenders that cheer them, it remains a lunatic's option.........

The one difference between A-ghanistan and Vietnam is that the mighty USA today is a listing ship in heavy seas. Rambo nitwits would have us with a sparking, short-circuited powergrid at home, all the other American infrastructure delinquencies, people losing their homes from healthcare bills and job losses AND ALL THE OTHER DOMESTIC FESTERINGS.......yet ramp up the mess in A-ghan!!

Think slowly you televison driven nudniks when you hiss the President about his decision in Afghanistan (and the only decision these jerkoffs would approve is more US lives to be sent to the hopeless grind in A-ghan!)........

No matter how many U.S. troops get sent to A-ghan......no matter how many bombs dropped.....no matter how long we stay.......it will end a disaster for the USA........

How smug and obsolete to think otherwise! :angry:

I'm impressed by your omnipotence, you should be part of The Anointed One's inner circle.

Did I mention 43% (and dropping) would vote for The Anointed One again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm impressed by your omnipotence, you should be part of The Anointed One's inner circle.

Did I mention 43% (and dropping) would vote for The Anointed One again?

Did we mention that he's still president?

Did we mention that a record low 20% now identify as Republicans?

Did we mention that Obama is more trusted than either party in Congress?

Whine all you want. Your party screwed up our country.

And if you want a second opinion, you're still an ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm impressed by your omnipotence, you should be part of The Anointed One's inner circle.

Did I mention 43% (and dropping) would vote for The Anointed One again?

Tumor4u.........you filthy soomka..........DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!!! :angry:

>>>Conventional wisdom,[3] supported by polls, was almost unanimous that a Dewey presidency was "inevitable", and that the New York governor would win the election handily. The first (one-star) edition of the Tribune therefore went to press with the banner headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".<<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tumor4u.........you filthy soomka..........DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!!! :lol:

>>>Conventional wisdom,[3] supported by polls, was almost unanimous that a Dewey presidency was "inevitable", and that the New York governor would win the election handily. The first (one-star) edition of the Tribune therefore went to press with the banner headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".<<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Defeats_Truman

So you're hoping lightning strikes again. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...