Tue, Jan 27, 2015, 3:09 PM EST - U.S. Markets close in 51 mins.


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Coca-Cola Company Message Board

  • azalphainvestor azalphainvestor Apr 1, 2005 2:17 PM Flag

    Poor Post Planning in Iraq

    `Pentagon Blamed for Lack of Postwar Planning in Iraq

    By Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A03

    "A study of U.S. military operations in Iraq, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, sharply criticizes Pentagon attempts to plan for the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion two years ago, saying stabilization and reconstruction issues "were addressed only very generally" and "no planning was undertaken to ensure the security of the Iraqi people."

    The study, done by the Rand Corp., an independent research group that was created by the U.S. government and frequently does analyses for the Pentagon, also says the experience in Iraq has underscored the Pentagon's tendency "not to absorb historical lessons" when battling insurgencies. It notes a lack of political-military coordination and of "actionable intelligence" in the counterinsurgency campaign, and urges creation in the Army of a "dedicated cadre of counterinsurgency specialists."

    The study highlights shortcomings as well in the conduct of the invasion. It cites inflated expectations at the outset about airstrikes in toppling the Baghdad government, poor performance by Apache helicopters in attack missions, delays in bomb damage assessments, gaps in tactical intelligence for battlefield commanders, disruptions in supply lines and inadequate coordination between Special Operations units and conventional forces.

    Although the report notes that Iraq's poorly trained and ill-equipped forces proved "no match" for U.S. troops, it says the conflict exposed some important problem areas for the U.S. military that need fixing. "

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • jadwao, it is because of postings like yours, I am glad nuclear power was shut down. Diablo is on a fault line. Q.E.D. The oversight system didn't work. And your knowledge of vibrations and siesmic activity is very limited. As was our scientists in back then and even now.

    • jad, re:

      >>>The cheapest, cleanest, most reliable, and safest way to generate electricity is with nuclear power - and its renewable! So, why is only 20% of our electricity supply generated from nuclear? You liberals are doing your level best to try and scare people away from it. (The liberal profs in our schools do a good job of reinforcing such nonsense). We haven't had a new nuclear facility come online since 9 years ago this month! Only 4 of our current 104 operating reactors came online within the last 15 years! It's been 28 years since we started construction of the last reactor!<<<

      Nuclear power was mismanaged. When companies sacrifice safety for profits, there eventually is a shutdown. Diablo is on a fault line... Nuclear power expansion was shut down. Good thing. It's oversight was not in control. Now would be a good time to begin again. We should invite the Japanese or French to build our nuclear power plants. Just as we invite the Chinese to make our clothes and electronics!

    • Alpha, your hero worship is killing your brain cells. You have stopped thinking and only see things as 'hero' or 'anti-hero' worship. Your biggest problem is that your choice of heroes is so pedestrian and hollow.

    • JadanalWad... If you could only read and think. One without the other is bad. Writing without either is exhaustingly drol.


    • REGARDING: Michael, let me understand your thought:
      RESPONSE: Based upon your following comment, you have shown you are, probably, incapable of understanding.

      REGARDING: You want 'users' to spend more for gasoline and then these same users will spend more for additional capital and expensed purchases?
      RESPONSE: Although you have been provided adequate information, you have made mental extrapolations that reflect your confused and prejudiced mind.
      I said that the increase in taxes, at the pump, would be offset by federal income tax credits.
      Arbitrarily, using the parameters of 30 mpg, 12,000 miles per year, the average usage per year would be 400 gallons, therefore with a $4.00 per gallon tax, the tax credit would be $1,600.00. Whereas the logistics of the application of the tax credit would be uneven, it would stimulate pattern changes, which would include serious contemplation when considering the purchase of an automobile.

    • This is a thread of vital importance to US. Pee and think it through a second and third time.


    • Analjadwad. YOur cheerleading for the Canudle is so endearing. Friedman comes up with an enlightened nearly revolutionary program and you two dumkuffs don't get it. You don't get it because you are RNC lame. You want creationism taught and complain about our educational commitmtent to hard science. It is AHoles as yourself that damage good education.

      Canudle on the other hand is certainly bright enough at times to appreciate and understand Friedman's recmmendation. He unfortunately has an anti-Fiedman bias. Sure it has much to do with Friedman's superior experience, knowledge and thinking on nearly everything. Of course he's really pissed off that Friedman was critical of W's post invasion fiasco. Canudle, like your analnys has too much invested in the militaristic pursuit to see how mcuh was missed and messed up.


    • Your analness.. recycling your emotional outburst. You should learn how to masterbate. Maybe you would plague the boards less.


    • Jadwad.. YOu can post all the RNC blabber you like. Until W and and the power structure acknowledges that cheap gasoline is a US addiction and seriously addresses our dependence on imported oil, the rest is pure lip sevice. I understand how you enjoy cozying on up to those butt cheeks with your lips, but that ain't healthy in the imported oil arena.

      Friedman makes more sense in his few articles than all you GOP DOE web pablam every day of the week.


    • ME: The $4.00 is, obviously, arbitrary.
      YOU: That's not abvious but if "arbitrary" to you means "out of your ass", fine.
      ME: If I said it was arbitrary, it was, obviously, arbitrary.
      Is English your fourth language???
      BTW, you must have a very smelly life if your conversations are of a gaseous nature.

      ME? A �substantial� tax increase would be an increase that would affect users of gasoline to alter their patterns.
      YOU: So you didn't mean "substantial" at all. You meant to say "sufficient". Fine!
      ME: No. I said exactly what I meant.
      Apparently, you didn't understand.
      What is your "primary" language?

      affects users to stimulate changes in their patterns such as drive less, take public transportation, carpool, purchase more efficient cars, move closer to work, telecommute, etc.

      >> Thank you for (finally) defining what you meant by "alter the patterns of users of gasoline" but, to what end do you wish them to drive less, take public transportation, etc?

      By the way, please don't say "It's obvious". If everything is as obvious as you say it is, why do humans attempt to communicate?

    • View More Messages
42.3555-0.6445(-1.50%)3:08 PMEST

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.