The Battle Of Iraq -- March-April 2003
D. Spencer Hines
was it General Franks' initiative?
DSH
"hippo" <hi...@south-sudan.net> wrote in message
news:11mdr1p...@corp.supernews.com...
| Briefs before the war were about things like vehicle maintenance in
desert
| conditions, how to read phonetic Arabic, signs of nerve agent attack,
the
| effects of sand on weapons systems, what to do in sandstorms, fighting
in
| MOP gear (coalition leaders were terrified of gas attack), the
location of
| Iraqi field forces, disarming Iraqi mines, and the like. No one
expected the
| lightening attack on Baghdad before the war. It was put together on
the fly
| at the last moment like Rommel's first attack into Cyrenaica in April
'41.
|
| The Brigade in Baghdad was expecting a counter-attack from Iraqi
divisions
| from the North which outnumbering them by many times. That's why they
| maintained defensive positions in the Green Zone until reinforced
which was
| after the capture of the airport and other operations west of the city
by
| the rest of 3rd Division. -the Troll
Michael W Cook
"Mission Accomplished"
Hilarious.
I remember someone else who was equally as cocky...
"I wanted to go to the Volga - at a certain point - at a certain city.
That city was named after Stalin, but that wasn't why I went there!
..... You just wait and see who made a mistake! On that much you can well
believe me: once we have captured something, we hold it so firmly that no
one will ever dare come near us. You can rely on that."
And we all know what happened there.
Jack Linthicum
Yeah David Halbersham said that they watch Patton at the White House
the night of the start of the Iraq War, they should have watched The
Battle for Algiers.
It has English subtitles but the Arabic ones would have been more
educational.
Michael W Cook
1130964083.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum"
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I agree, and if that didn't work, maybe The Fall of Saigon would.
There were five separate studies prepared for the Bush administration on how
to handle the inevitable post-war problems likely to be encountered in Iraq
after the fall of Saddam.
These studies were conducted by organisations one might expect to know a
thing or two about such scenarios and war planning - organisations like the
Army War College, the CIA and the US Dept of State.
They covered such themes as:
An initial and broad-based commitment to law and order.
I.e. Prevent Looting and armed gangs roaming the streets.
Secure the nation's borders and block entry of foreign fighters.
Getting key services like electricity and clean water running ASAP.
Guarding weapon's caches and handling the demobilisation of the Iraqi army
with the greatest of care and sensitivity.
Finally, you need a couple of hundred thousand soldiers to do the job.
They could have had a sixth study, but it wouldn't have made any difference,
that one too would have been completely ignored like the other five were.
Mark Test
news:BF8ECB90.1833D%Nuff...@hotmail.com...
>
> "Mission Accomplished"
>
Major combat operations have been over ever since that statement.
Your point??????????
> Hilarious.
>
If you say so....
Mark Test
> On 2/11/05 20:41, in article
> 1130964083.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum"
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Michael W Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> "Mission Accomplished"
> >>
> >> Hilarious.
> >>
> >> I remember someone else who was equally as cocky...
> >>
> >> "I wanted to go to the Volga - at a certain point - at a certain city.
> >> That city was named after Stalin, but that wasn't why I went there!
> >> ..... You just wait and see who made a mistake! On that much you can
well
> >> believe me: once we have captured something, we hold it so firmly that
no
> >> one will ever dare come near us. You can rely on that."
> >>
> >> And we all know what happened there.
> >
> > Yeah David Halbersham said that they watch Patton at the White House
> > the night of the start of the Iraq War, they should have watched The
> > Battle for Algiers.
> > It has English subtitles but the Arabic ones would have been more
> > educational.
> >
>
> I agree, and if that didn't work, maybe The Fall of Saigon would.
>
experience
of losing wars....which is probably why no one is voting for them.
William Black
"Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:TBhaf.4239$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Hmm, no actually the Dems (caused the fall of Saigon) have all the
> experience
> of losing wars....which is probably why no one is voting for them.
Well historically the Democrats were the party that started foreign wars.
GW Bush has created some sort of precedent by being a mainstream Republican
who started a foreign war. Before him the Republican Party thought of war
as 'something bad for business', and they were right.
Of course some wars need fighting...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Michael W Cook
5Ahaf.4238$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Mark Test"
<MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> "Michael W Cook" <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:BF8ECB90.1833D%Nuff...@hotmail.com...
>>
>> "Mission Accomplished"
>>
> Major combat operations have been over ever since that statement.
> Your point??????????
Err...
Remind me how many US troops have died since "Mission Accomplished" ?
How many combat troops do the US still have in Iraq ?
Sealing a whole city (Fallujah) off from the rest of the country, and then
launching a massive military operation which lasted over a month, wasn't a
'Major Combat Operation' I suppose.
> If you say so....
I do say so and all the evidence supports me. Only someone like you with
their head up their arse would argue otherwise.
"Accomplished" - Adj. successfully completed; achieved, expert proficient.
Have military operations in Iraq been successfully completed by the US ?
No, they haven't.
Perhaps that banner should now read:
"Mission Fucked Up and Getting Worse"
a.spencer3
"Mark Test" <MAR...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:TBhaf.4239$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
You're now on a par with Hines.
Such idiocy would also need to claim that it's the Republicans who are, at
the very least, not winning in Iraq.
Gawd ......!
Surreyman
a.spencer3
Headline from several US papers a few days ago:
"Major combat operations continue in West Iraq"
Surreyman
Jack Linthicum
Something seems to have gotten the idea of "supporting our troops in
Iraq" into the collective heads at the Pentagon. And I don't mean the
rest rooms. A task force, what a concept, can we hold meetings with no
agenda and endless posturing? With a $1.2B budget we should get our own
airplanes and first class accomodations.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-ied3nov03,0,7392054.story?coll=la-tot-promo&track=morenews
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Pentagon Sets Its Sights on Roadside Bombs
A new task force is planned to target the most lethal weapon of the
Iraqi insurgency.
By Mark Mazzetti
Times Staff Writer
November 3, 2005
WASHINGTON - With Iraqi insurgents building ever-more powerful
homemade bombs, the Pentagon is finalizing plans to put a high-level
general in charge of a new task force that will try to harness the
expertise of the CIA, FBI, businesses and academics to combat the
guerrillas' most lethal weapon.
The Pentagon has devoted two years to finding ways to combat the
makeshift bombs, known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Yet in
the view of some senior generals, the IED problem remains a low
priority in Washington. "The field commanders are saying: 'This country
can put a man on the moon. Why can't it solve this problem?' " said one
senior Defense official, who requested anonymity.
The officials said some military leaders - such as Gen. John P.
Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East - have been
pushing for a more focused, government-wide effort to address the
largest threat facing U.S. troops in Iraq.
In the last six months, more than 60% of U.S. troop fatalities in Iraq
have been the result of IEDs. The Pentagon has announced that 96 U.S.
service members died in Iraq in October, the fourth-deadliest month for
troops since the war began in March 2003. And experts are warning that
the improvised explosives are likely to be a large problem for U.S.
forces for years to come, not only in Iraq but also Afghanistan.
Under the plans, the new task force would be led by an active-duty
three-star general or admiral, or a retired four-star officer. The
budget has not been determined. Pentagon officials said the plans were
in their final stages and awaiting Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld's approval.
A small task force launched in July 2004 and led by a one-star officer,
Army Brig. Gen. Joseph Votel, has been credited with developing various
technologies to combat the IED threat, such as equipping soldiers with
electronic devices to detonate the makeshift bombs before they can
damage U.S. military convoys. The task force has an annual budget of
about $1.2 billion.
<more>
Mark Bradford
administration that orchestrated the withdrawal of US troops from SVN.
Having lived through that period, it was not one of the highlights of US
history. The corruption of both Republican and Democrats was laid bare. In
my view, there has been very little difference between the two. I hold both
parties in pretty much contempt.
Keith W
"Mark Bradford" <mark...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:gDnaf.32992$x6.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> Actually, Richard Nixon was still in office when Saigon fell. It was his
> administration that orchestrated the withdrawal of US troops from SVN.
>
No he wasnt, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974. Saigon
fell on 30 April 1975. The president at the time was Gerald Ford
Keith
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Michael W Cook
"Mark Bradford" <mark...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The same can be said of Iraq.
Between 911 and the invasion of Iraq, not a single media outlet or
politician in the US questioned the Bush administration's drive for war and
the lies they told about Saddam, Iraq and WMD.
Nobody challenged the official line, not once, everyone played ball as Bush
and the neo-Cons whipped the nation up into a patriotic frenzy, just like
the Nazis did in the 1930's at places like Nuremburg.
Shame on America.
Mark Bradford
"Keith W" <keit...@kwillshaw.nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1131025...@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "Mark Bradford" <mark...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:gDnaf.32992$x6.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
>
> > Actually, Richard Nixon was still in office when Saigon fell. It was
his
> > administration that orchestrated the withdrawal of US troops from SVN.
> >
>
> No he wasnt, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974. Saigon
> fell on 30 April 1975. The president at the time was Gerald Ford
>
> Keith
>
>
Mark
Jack Love
This is from the same set of organizations that can't tell the
difference between a CVA and a BB; or, between assault guns and tanks,
or between, etc., etc., etc. Sorry, the media are NOT authorities.
>Surreyman
>
a.spencer3
"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:03hkm1hcoblh1mt6c...@4ax.com...
So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent days?
Surreyman
Jack Love
Would you like to define 'major combat operations' so we can be sure
to communicate?
D. Spencer Hines
No precedent for Republicans....
William McKinley, a Republican, was quite willing to fight a "foreign
war" -- the Spanish-American War, in 1898.
Of course McKinley was provoked, just as Wilson was in 1917 and FDR was
in 1941-- and GWB was, in turn, in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
DSH
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dkcikg$ctl$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
Michael W Cook
"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote:
How many US tanks or armoured vehicles are in Iraq, Jack ?
How many US combat personnel ?
How many combat aircraft are deployed in the region ?
How many combat choppers ?
How many US ships are there in the Gulf ?
Now add them all up, Jack.
Now if THAT doesn't tell you that major combat operations are STILL going on
in Iraq, I don't know what will.
Paul J. Adam
Test <MAR...@peoplepc.com> writes
>Hmm, no actually the Dems (caused the fall of Saigon)
Nixon wins in '68, Saigon falls in '75. Hmmm. Does this mean that if the
Democrats win in 2008, they get to claim that Bush Jr. "caused the fall
of Iraq"?
Democrat administrations in Vietnam try the "more troops, more support,
more troops and when in doubt *more* troops!" approach to shoring up the
South Vietnamese edifice. Nixon, likely correctly, went for "they want
it, they can fight for it" - and saw the determination with which the
ARVN resisted the PAVN. If _they_ don't want to fight, how many US lives
is it worth to prevent Saigon becoming Ho Chi Minh City and how
catastrophic is it going to be?
With full hindsight, how much would the US have lost (and how much could
it have gained) if it had told Saigon "sorry, but you're on your own, if
you want weaponry or training then we take hard cash only" from the
1950s onwards, and then told a victorious Ho that Firestone and Goodyear
would buy his latex for dollars in exchange for basing rights at Camh
Ranh Bay?
>have all the
>experience
>of losing wars....which is probably why no one is voting for them.
49% is a pretty big "no-one", isn't it?
Careful, Mark, this is the sort of thinking that loses the next election
big-time and gets you unelectable for years thereafter. Seen it twice in
thirty years in the UK, and it's not good for a functional democracy
whichever side wins: you end up with triumphalism, arrogance, corruption
and collapse. (Okay, the current iteration is only at #3)
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
Paul J. Adam
Test <MAR...@peoplepc.com> writes
>"Michael W Cook" <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:BF8ECB90.1833D%Nuff...@hotmail.com...
>>
>> "Mission Accomplished"
>>
>Major combat operations have been over ever since that statement.
I'd have called actions like the clearance of Fallujah to be a pretty
"major combat operation", myself.
But I guess if you call a tail a leg, that means my cat has five legs.
Jack Love
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <5Ahaf.4238$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Mark
>Test <MAR...@peoplepc.com> writes
>>"Michael W Cook" <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:BF8ECB90.1833D%Nuff...@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>> "Mission Accomplished"
>>>
>>Major combat operations have been over ever since that statement.
>
>I'd have called actions like the clearance of Fallujah to be a pretty
>"major combat operation", myself.
>
>But I guess if you call a tail a leg, that means my cat has five legs.
One of the interesting points about the 'major combat operations are
over' phrase is that it was requested by CENTCOM because it was
supposed to trigger NATO involvement in policing Iraq. Which, of
course, the French, Germans and Belgians promptly welshed on.
And Mr Cook, whose altitude equals pond scum...apparently doesn't
understand that most military operations are broken up into 'missions'
with specific objectives thus ABRAHAM LINCOLN's crew could justly say
'Mission Accomplished' with no effect on other events elsewhere.
Jack Love
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <TBhaf.4239$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Mark
>Test <MAR...@peoplepc.com> writes
>>Hmm, no actually the Dems (caused the fall of Saigon)
>
>Nixon wins in '68, Saigon falls in '75. Hmmm. Does this mean that if the
>Democrats win in 2008, they get to claim that Bush Jr. "caused the fall
>of Iraq"?
One of my MANY complaints about Nixon is that he could have gotten
exactly the same terms from NVN on day one of his adminstration as he
did when he finally accepted the 'decent interval' strategy. I'm
still not sure it was a great answer, but we could have gotten out 8
years and many thousands of casualties fewer.
Paul J. Adam
<jackxx...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:17:16 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'd have called actions like the clearance of Fallujah to be a pretty
>>"major combat operation", myself.
>>
>>But I guess if you call a tail a leg, that means my cat has five legs.
>
>One of the interesting points about the 'major combat operations are
>over' phrase is that it was requested by CENTCOM because it was
>supposed to trigger NATO involvement in policing Iraq. Which, of
>course, the French, Germans and Belgians promptly welshed on.
Had they actually *committed* to anything, or did they just decline to
swallow the bait?
As events proved, they can hardly be faulted for doubting that Iraq was
now peaceful and merely required a few extra troops to keep it firmly
under control: after all, the US itself robustly insisted that the
forces present were quite sufficient for the task at hand and no extra
numbers were needed. (By that argument, who cares if CENTCOM weren't
encumbered with a straggle of foreign troops? If there were ample troops
in-theatre, why would adding more have done more than sow confusion?)
>And Mr Cook, whose altitude equals pond scum...apparently doesn't
>understand that most military operations are broken up into 'missions'
>with specific objectives thus ABRAHAM LINCOLN's crew could justly say
>'Mission Accomplished' with no effect on other events elsewhere.
True to a point, but having the head of state attend tends to led the
matter a certain importance. When retaking the Falklands back in 1982,
for example, getting the #4 head on HMS Unremarkable unblocked was
certainly a 'mission with a specific objective' for the rating tasked to
the job... but having HM the Queen fly aboard HMS Invincible and stand
under a banner saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" for the world's media to
celebrate that lavatory's return to service might seem just a little
disproportionate.
Vince Brannigan
of course the white house had the sign made
Vince
Colin Campbell
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent days?
Major as compared to what?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Fred J. McCall
:How many US tanks or armoured vehicles are in Iraq, Jack ?
:
:How many US combat personnel ?
:
:How many combat aircraft are deployed in the region ?
:
:How many combat choppers ?
:
:How many US ships are there in the Gulf ?
:
:Now add them all up, Jack.
:
:Now if THAT doesn't tell you that major combat operations are STILL going on
:in Iraq, I don't know what will.
Gee, by Cookie's definition, it appears that WWII in Europe never
ended. Just count all those same things in Germany and the
surrounding area, including, of course, US operations in the
Mediterranean Sea.
Looks like there were major combat operations in Germany right up
through the 1980s, at least. They may even still be ongoing, by the
Cookie Rule; I haven't looked to see what we keep over there lately.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:of course the white house had the sign made
Of course it was, Vinnie. Of course it was....
--
"I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right
to say it."
-- Voltaire
Jack Love
<ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <ih1lm1damau5gte0q...@4ax.com>, Jack Love
><jackxx...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:17:16 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>><ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I'd have called actions like the clearance of Fallujah to be a pretty
>>>"major combat operation", myself.
>>>
>>>But I guess if you call a tail a leg, that means my cat has five legs.
>>
>>One of the interesting points about the 'major combat operations are
>>over' phrase is that it was requested by CENTCOM because it was
>>supposed to trigger NATO involvement in policing Iraq. Which, of
>>course, the French, Germans and Belgians promptly welshed on.
>
>Had they actually *committed* to anything, or did they just decline to
>swallow the bait?
I believe they had (though that particular piece of trivia doesn't
surface in my memory) CENTCOM thought they had, apparently, both
Franks and DeLong.
>As events proved, they can hardly be faulted for doubting that Iraq was
>now peaceful and merely required a few extra troops to keep it firmly
>under control: after all, the US itself robustly insisted that the
>forces present were quite sufficient for the task at hand and no extra
>numbers were needed. (By that argument, who cares if CENTCOM weren't
>encumbered with a straggle of foreign troops? If there were ample troops
>in-theatre, why would adding more have done more than sow confusion?)
One could flip the argument and propose that the lack of those
policing forces made the situation worse.
>>And Mr Cook, whose altitude equals pond scum...apparently doesn't
>>understand that most military operations are broken up into 'missions'
>>with specific objectives thus ABRAHAM LINCOLN's crew could justly say
>>'Mission Accomplished' with no effect on other events elsewhere.
>
>True to a point, but having the head of state attend tends to led the
>matter a certain importance.
Sure, and to a certain extent one can't deny the desire for a photo-op
to recognize and celebrate a major victory. However, not to be
forgotten are the frequent caveats issued by all the top folk on the
'long road ahead' theme before and after. Those commenta are, of
course, conveniently forgotten by the 'never remember anything
inconvenient' opponentry.
Vince
> Vince Brannigan <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
> :of course the white house had the sign made
>
> Of course it was, Vinnie. Of course it was....
>
Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
hite House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
From Dana Bash
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) --What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo
op continues to dog President Bush six months after he landed on an
aircraft carrier to declare "one victory" in the war on terrorism and an
end to major combat operations in Iraq.
Attention turned Tuesday to a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign that
stood behind Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln when he gave the speech
May 1.
The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the
White House.
"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my
staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said
Tuesday.
Now his statements are being parsed even further.
Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the
Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.
Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech
declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission
Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq
since then have surpassed those before it.
During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory
in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."
The speech and events surrounding it were widely publicized and served
as the symbolic end to the war in Iraq.
At the time, it appeared that every detail of the day's events had been
carefully planned, including the president's arrival in the co-pilot's
seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two flybys of the carrier.
The exterior of the four-seat S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" and
"George W. Bush Commander in Chief."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the
speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a
"Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.
"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people
to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."
The banner has been used by critics of the Bush administration as
evidence of bravado and an unclear sense of how dangerous the postwar
conflict in Iraq would be.
Assigning responsibility elsewhere, especially to the military, is not a
typical move for the Bush administration and raised suspicions among
critics.
Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president's assertion.
"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," Chun said.
"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's
deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days,
longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.
At the time of the event, Democrats worried President Bush would use his
speech and the dramatic landing for political gain.
On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidates, hoping to make it a
political liability for Bush, accused him of trying to shift blame for
the stagecraft to the Navy.
"Landing on an aircraft carrier and saying 'mission accomplished' didn't
end a war, and standing in the Rose Garden and stating that 'Iraq is a
dangerous place' does nothing to make American troops safer," Sen. John
Kerry of Massachusetts said in a written statement Tuesday.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean also issued a critical statement.
"Today, we heard him try to walk away from the USS Abraham Lincoln 'end
of major combat operations' announcement, absurdly claiming that the
White House was not responsible for the 'Mission Accomplished' banner
that decorated the flight deck," Dean said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
a.spencer3
Er ... a lot of people trying to kill each other with accompanying
bang-bangs?
Or does anything less than D-Day (or, conveniently, less than the West Iraq
numbers) not count?
Gawd! ...
Surreyman
a.spencer3
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:dt7lm1pr8g57n5sm2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent
days?
>
> Major as compared to what?
>
You want to call it 'minor'?
Surreyman
Michael W Cook
Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ih1lm1damau5gte0q...@4ax.com>, Jack Love
> <jackxx...@earthlink.net> writes
>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:17:16 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>> <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'd have called actions like the clearance of Fallujah to be a pretty
>>> "major combat operation", myself.
>>>
>>> But I guess if you call a tail a leg, that means my cat has five legs.
>>
>> One of the interesting points about the 'major combat operations are
>> over' phrase is that it was requested by CENTCOM because it was
>> supposed to trigger NATO involvement in policing Iraq. Which, of
>> course, the French, Germans and Belgians promptly welshed on.
>
> Had they actually *committed* to anything, or did they just decline to
> swallow the bait?
I'd say the latter myself.
>
> As events proved, they can hardly be faulted for doubting that Iraq was
> now peaceful and merely required a few extra troops to keep it firmly
> under control: after all, the US itself robustly insisted that the
> forces present were quite sufficient for the task at hand and no extra
> numbers were needed. (By that argument, who cares if CENTCOM weren't
> encumbered with a straggle of foreign troops? If there were ample troops
> in-theatre, why would adding more have done more than sow confusion?)
Simple
Because as the US commanders said all along, they needed more troops to do
the job properly. Rumsfeld, however, thought different.
But with cover from other nations under the guise of the UN, the US would
then be able to withdraw some of their own troops so they wouldn't be so
overstretched.
>> And Mr Cook, whose altitude equals pond scum...apparently doesn't
>> understand that most military operations are broken up into 'missions'
>> with specific objectives thus ABRAHAM LINCOLN's crew could justly say
>> 'Mission Accomplished' with no effect on other events elsewhere.
>
> True to a point, but having the head of state attend tends to led the
> matter a certain importance. When retaking the Falklands back in 1982,
> for example, getting the #4 head on HMS Unremarkable unblocked was
> certainly a 'mission with a specific objective' for the rating tasked to
> the job... but having HM the Queen fly aboard HMS Invincible and stand
> under a banner saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" for the world's media to
> celebrate that lavatory's return to service might seem just a little
> disproportionate.
Indeed, if it was only supposed to be the end of 'Phase One' so to speak of
the military operations, why was the Commander in Chief making a special
appearances behind banners reading "Mission Accomplished" ?
The fact of the matter is they wanted everyone to believe that Iraq was all
done and dusted, when it clearly wasn't and still isn't.
Michael W Cook
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>> So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent days?
>
> Major as compared to what?
Fallujah ?
a.spencer3
So that 'Mission' accomplished was minor?
Gawd ... these people do have to scrabble around in their own defence, don't
they.
One day they might learn that it's easier to talk sense.
Surreyman
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> However, not to be
> forgotten are the frequent caveats issued by all the top folk on the
> 'long road ahead' theme before and after.
For Gawd's sake, it was we lefties/pinkos/Saddam lovers who were saying just
that while Bush was shreeking 'Mission Accomplished'!
Surreyman
Michael W Cook
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Vince Brannigan <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
> :of course the white house had the sign made
>
> Of course it was, Vinnie. Of course it was....
Fred's still pontificating and getting things WRONG again I see.
The White House were consulted on the banner, they also gave their approval
as to the positioning of it for maximum effect with the world's media.
Michael W Cook
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Even more of Fred's Shoe-Shine logic, we are honoured today.
Were the US troops in Europe physically fighting an enemy, Fred ?
Were they under constant attack from the local populations ?
Was every sortie involving combat aircraft and choppers flown with 'Live'
missiles and primed bombs ?
Whenever soldiers left their bases, did they do so armed to the teeth in
armoured cars with live ammo ?
Most importantly, how many troops were actually killed by that enemy ?
The military war in Europe finished in 1945, Fred, Iraq is ongoing.
a.spencer3
I haven't quite yet cottoned on as to why those who so eloquently defend
'Mission Accomplished' at the same time seem to want to pass the buck on the
banner .........?
Surreyman
Colin Campbell
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Would you like to define 'major combat operations' so we can be sure
>> to communicate?
>
>Er ... a lot of people trying to kill each other with accompanying
>bang-bangs?
>Or does anything less than D-Day (or, conveniently, less than the West Iraq
>numbers) not count?
Ah - so you are refusing to define the term so you can claim anything
is a 'major combat operation.'
Colin Campbell
It depends on the criteria used. If you have no criteria to determine
that is 'large' and what is 'small' then it is meaningless to claim
that they are 'large.'
What is a 'large operation?' Two soldiers? Ten? A hundred? A
thousand?
Colin Campbell
Then these do not count as 'major' then.
See how easy this is when you actually think?
Colin Campbell
Actually what you were shrieking was more along the lines of: "Wah! I
hate Bush! Why did the Americans elect a President who looks out for
American interests rather than European interests?"
And you guys never foresaw the Iraqi elections either.
a.spencer3
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:30:35 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Would you like to define 'major combat operations' so we can be sure
> >> to communicate?
> >
> >Er ... a lot of people trying to kill each other with accompanying
> >bang-bangs?
> >Or does anything less than D-Day (or, conveniently, less than the West
Iraq
> >numbers) not count?
>
> Ah - so you are refusing to define the term so you can claim anything
> is a 'major combat operation.'
>
weeks".
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:32:03 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
in
> >message news:dt7lm1pr8g57n5sm2...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> >> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent
> >days?
> >>
> >> Major as compared to what?
> >>
> >
> >You want to call it 'minor'?
>
> It depends on the criteria used. If you have no criteria to determine
> that is 'large' and what is 'small' then it is meaningless to claim
> that they are 'large.'
>
> What is a 'large operation?' Two soldiers? Ten? A hundred? A
> thousand?
>
Do you want to call recent operations in western Iraq as minor or major?
Just needs a 'major' or 'minor', not a bloody essay.
Surreyman
a.spencer3
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:00:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:km5mm1lhha2lknvk1...@4ax.com...
> >> However, not to be
> >> forgotten are the frequent caveats issued by all the top folk on the
> >> 'long road ahead' theme before and after.
> >
> >For Gawd's sake, it was we lefties/pinkos/Saddam lovers who were saying
just
> >that while Bush was shreeking 'Mission Accomplished'!
>
> Actually what you were shrieking was more along the lines of: "Wah! I
> hate Bush! Why did the Americans elect a President who looks out for
> American interests rather than European interests?"
>
> And you guys never foresaw the Iraqi elections either.
>
Silly me. I thought he was claiming to be looking after Iraq's interests.
The truth will out.
Surreyman
Michael W Cook
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
It was John Mortimer, eminent QC and Playwright, who said that anyone who
uses the word 'Liberal' as a derogatory term, is beyond contempt.
That's Bush, the neo-Cons and the US Christian Right guilty straight away.
Michael W Cook
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:30:35 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Would you like to define 'major combat operations' so we can be sure
>>> to communicate?
>>
>> Er ... a lot of people trying to kill each other with accompanying
>> bang-bangs?
>> Or does anything less than D-Day (or, conveniently, less than the West Iraq
>> numbers) not count?
>
> Ah - so you are refusing to define the term so you can claim anything
> is a 'major combat operation.'
Say Fallujah, Spence.
Campbell refuses to play ball with me, because he gets his arse spanked.
Michael W Cook
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:49:15 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
> <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/05 23:40, in article dt7lm1pr8g57n5sm2...@4ax.com,
>> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent days?
>>>
>>> Major as compared to what?
>>
>> Fallujah ?
>
> Then these do not count as 'major' then.
>
> See how easy this is when you actually think?
See how easy it is when you block your tiny brain to the reality.
On Oct. 4 the U.S. Army opened a new offensive in the West of Iraq called
"Operation River Gate", where U.S. occupation troops began attacking the
cities of Haklanija, Parwana and Haditha in Iraqąs Anbar province.
According to reports from news agencies, combat aircraft and helicopters
bombed areas the U.S. forces described as "possible hiding places for
resistance groups."
A mere skirmish I suppose ?
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Vince Brannigan <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
:>
:> :of course the white house had the sign made
:>
:> Of course it was, Vinnie. Of course it was....
:>
:White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
:Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
Ah, you left out the little bit that the ship requested it (through
Navy channels), presumably in order to try to make it sound like it
was a 'put up job' by the Administration.
Vinnie pressed on 'mission accomplished sign
admits White House didn't really originate it
but just provided services on request originating
from Navy.
Vinnie pressed on 'mission accomplished sign
admits White House didn't really originate it
but just provided services on request originating
from Navy.
:hite House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
Fred J. McCall
:"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:p5pkm1d918e199nbl...@4ax.com...
:> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
:> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
:> >
:> >So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent days?
:>
:> Would you like to define 'major combat operations' so we can be sure
:> to communicate?
:
:Er ... a lot of people trying to kill each other with accompanying
:bang-bangs?
Sounds like Detroit....
:Or does anything less than D-Day (or, conveniently, less than the West Iraq
:numbers) not count?
Be glad he's not me. I'd not only want your definition of "major
combat operations" but also your definition of "recent days".
:Gawd! ...
Yes, my child?
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
You want to stop trolling and define your terms?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Charlie Wolf
<Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Mission Accomplished"
>
>Hilarious.
>
>I remember someone else who was equally as cocky...
Thank you for posting your latest Bush-hating garbage. Your efforts
on our behalf have not gone unnoticed, and we simply wanted to pass
our sincerest thanks to you for your continuing efforts to support us
and our great cause. Please know that, while we continue our struggle
with the great Satan, we could use your further support in two
critical areas. Number one, we are quickly running out of money and
would appreciate your generous donation to any one of a number of our
organizations in the U.S. Just go to any mosque and ask where you can
contribute - or, as an alternative, you may contact the Council on
American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for direct contributions. Problem
number two is that we are quickly running out of suitable soldiers in
our war against the Great Satan. You see, evil American forces are
killing our terrorists eh, I mean insurgents in ever increasing
numbers and our vehicle drivers are really only worth about one trip
apiece. So, in your continuing efforts to support us, we would love
to hear from you regarding your desires to provide direct assistance.
Again - thank you so much for your support here on the internet for
our cause.
Sincerely - al Queda
Fred J. McCall
:On 3/11/05 22:51, in article 6q3gcZhr...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk, "Paul J.
:Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:
:> In message <ih1lm1damau5gte0q...@4ax.com>, Jack Love
:> <jackxx...@earthlink.net> writes
:>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:17:16 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
:>> <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
:>>> I'd have called actions like the clearance of Fallujah to be a pretty
:>>> "major combat operation", myself.
:>>>
:>>> But I guess if you call a tail a leg, that means my cat has five legs.
:>>
:>> One of the interesting points about the 'major combat operations are
:>> over' phrase is that it was requested by CENTCOM because it was
:>> supposed to trigger NATO involvement in policing Iraq. Which, of
:>> course, the French, Germans and Belgians promptly welshed on.
:>
:> Had they actually *committed* to anything, or did they just decline to
:> swallow the bait?
:
:I'd say the latter myself.
Of course you would, Cookie. Now ask if anyone believes you regarding
ANY issue having to do with the US, given your obvious and long
standing biases?
:> As events proved, they can hardly be faulted for doubting that Iraq was
:> now peaceful and merely required a few extra troops to keep it firmly
:> under control: after all, the US itself robustly insisted that the
:> forces present were quite sufficient for the task at hand and no extra
:> numbers were needed. (By that argument, who cares if CENTCOM weren't
:> encumbered with a straggle of foreign troops? If there were ample troops
:> in-theatre, why would adding more have done more than sow confusion?)
:
:Simple
:
:Because as the US commanders said all along, they needed more troops to do
:the job properly. Rumsfeld, however, thought different.
And in the end he was right, although it was a near run thing.
:But with cover from other nations under the guise of the UN, the US would
:then be able to withdraw some of their own troops so they wouldn't be so
:overstretched.
One assumes that if others want to meddle in running things and making
decisions, they're going to be part of the solution rather than part
of the problem. However, we ARE talking about folks like the French,
so that is obviously an unrealistic expectation.
:>> And Mr Cook, whose altitude equals pond scum...apparently doesn't
:>> understand that most military operations are broken up into 'missions'
:>> with specific objectives thus ABRAHAM LINCOLN's crew could justly say
:>> 'Mission Accomplished' with no effect on other events elsewhere.
:>
:> True to a point, but having the head of state attend tends to led the
:> matter a certain importance. When retaking the Falklands back in 1982,
:> for example, getting the #4 head on HMS Unremarkable unblocked was
:> certainly a 'mission with a specific objective' for the rating tasked to
:> the job... but having HM the Queen fly aboard HMS Invincible and stand
:> under a banner saying "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" for the world's media to
:> celebrate that lavatory's return to service might seem just a little
:> disproportionate.
:
:Indeed, if it was only supposed to be the end of 'Phase One' so to speak of
:the military operations, why was the Commander in Chief making a special
:appearances behind banners reading "Mission Accomplished" ?
Because it was?
:The fact of the matter is they wanted everyone to believe that Iraq was all
:done and dusted, when it clearly wasn't and still isn't.
Cookie, you wouldn't know a fact if someone jammed one up your bum
sideways, no matter how much you enjoyed the experience.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Fred J. McCall
:On 4/11/05 05:39, in article lvslm11tst5lsh11j...@4ax.com,
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Vince Brannigan <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
:>
:> :of course the white house had the sign made
:>
:> Of course it was, Vinnie. Of course it was....
:
:Fred's still pontificating and getting things WRONG again I see.
Cookie, as usual you're blind.
:The White House were consulted on the banner, they also gave their approval
:as to the positioning of it for maximum effect with the world's media.
Cite? Your spin is quite different than what Vinnie had to step back
to. Of course, you're one of the few folks who hates the current US
Administration more than Vinnie, so I guess that isn't surprising....
Fred J. McCall
:On 4/11/05 05:28, in article f7slm11ctnhobupvq...@4ax.com,
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
:> Michael W Cook <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> :How many US tanks or armoured vehicles are in Iraq, Jack ?
:> :
:> :How many US combat personnel ?
:> :
:> :How many combat aircraft are deployed in the region ?
:> :
:> :How many combat choppers ?
:> :
:> :How many US ships are there in the Gulf ?
:> :
:> :Now add them all up, Jack.
:> :
:> :Now if THAT doesn't tell you that major combat operations are STILL going on
:> :in Iraq, I don't know what will.
:>
:> Gee, by Cookie's definition, it appears that WWII in Europe never
:> ended. Just count all those same things in Germany and the
:> surrounding area, including, of course, US operations in the
:> Mediterranean Sea.
:>
:> Looks like there were major combat operations in Germany right up
:> through the 1980s, at least. They may even still be ongoing, by the
:> Cookie Rule; I haven't looked to see what we keep over there lately.
:
:Even more of Fred's Shoe-Shine logic, we are honoured today.
See what happens when you actually APPLY Cookie Crumb's 'logic'.
:Were the US troops in Europe physically fighting an enemy, Fred ?
Did you mention anyone doing that in your description above of what
ought to make 'major combat operations' obvious to Jack, Cookie? No,
you did not.
:Were they under constant attack from the local populations ?
Did you mention anyone doing that in your description above of what
ought to make 'major combat operations' obvious to Jack, Cookie? No,
you did not.
:Was every sortie involving combat aircraft and choppers flown with 'Live'
:missiles and primed bombs ?
In point of fact, yes. However, did you mention anyone doing that in
your description above of what ought to make 'major combat operations'
obvious to Jack, Cookie? No, you did not.
:Whenever soldiers left their bases, did they do so armed to the teeth in
:armoured cars with live ammo ?
Did you mention anyone doing that in your description above of what
ought to make 'major combat operations' obvious to Jack, Cookie? No,
you did not.
:Most importantly, how many troops were actually killed by that enemy ?
Did you mention anyone doing that in your description above of what
ought to make 'major combat operations' obvious to Jack, Cookie? No,
you did not.
:The military war in Europe finished in 1945, Fred, Iraq is ongoing.
See why we want you purblind trolls to define your terms before anyone
answers a 'question', Cookie?
Would you care to take another swing at how one identifies 'major
combat operations' again?
Michael W Cook
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:00:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:km5mm1lhha2lknvk1...@4ax.com...
>>> However, not to be
>>> forgotten are the frequent caveats issued by all the top folk on the
>>> 'long road ahead' theme before and after.
>>
>> For Gawd's sake, it was we lefties/pinkos/Saddam lovers who were saying just
>> that while Bush was shreeking 'Mission Accomplished'!
>
> Actually what you were shrieking was more along the lines of: "Wah! I
> hate Bush! Why did the Americans elect a President who looks out for
> American interests rather than European interests?"
You really are a Joke, Campbell.
ell me how the invasion of Iraq looking after US interests ?
It's cost the lives of over 2000 US troops.
15,000 + have been seriously wounded, many of whom would have died in
previous conflicts.
Heaven knows how many billions of dollars it's cost the US taxpayer.
For what ?
How has the US or anyone benefited from such folly ?
Do try and refrain from regurgitating the Bush and neo-Con lies.
> And you guys never foresaw the Iraqi elections either.
Elections that huge numbers of people boycotted and where the main aim was
to install a US puppet government.
Some democracy.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Michael W Cook" <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I suspect this is just one of many things you "haven't quite yet
cottoned on". Little details like "conforms to reality" might give
you a clue....
Michael W Cook
"Charlie Wolf" <charli...@noemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
> <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mission Accomplished"
>>
>> Hilarious.
>>
>> I remember someone else who was equally as cocky...
> Thank you for posting your latest Bush-hating garbage.
Most welcome
>Your efforts
> on our behalf have not gone unnoticed, and we simply wanted to pass
> our sincerest thanks to you for your continuing efforts to support us
> and our great cause.
What great cause would that be ?
Zionism and Israel ?
> Please know that, while we continue our struggle
> with the great Satan,
The only Satan we are dealing with here is Bush, a man who claims to talk
with God and is supposed to be a devout Christian.
Perhaps someone should remind him of those great Christian teachings:
"Thou shalt not kill"
"Love thy neighbour"
"Turn the other cheek"
> we could use your further support in two
> critical areas. Number one, we are quickly running out of money and
> would appreciate your generous donation to any one of a number of our
> organizations in the U.S. Just go to any mosque and ask where you can
> contribute - or, as an alternative, you may contact the Council on
> American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for direct contributions.
I'd happily give any Muslim organisation a donation any day over the whacko
Christian Fundamentalist Churches in the US.
>Problem
> number two is that we are quickly running out of suitable soldiers in
> our war against the Great Satan.
Never mind, that'll teach America not to go starting illegal wars.
Snip
Vince
> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Vince Brannigan <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
> :>
> :> :of course the white house had the sign made
> :>
> :> Of course it was, Vinnie. Of course it was....
> :>
> :White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
> :Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
>
> Ah, you left out the little bit that the ship requested it (through
> Navy channels), presumably in order to try to make it sound like it
> was a 'put up job' by the Administration.
>
> Vinnie pressed on 'mission accomplished sign
> admits White House didn't really originate it
> but just provided services on request originating
> from Navy.
>
> Vinnie pressed on 'mission accomplished sign
> admits White House didn't really originate it
> but just provided services on request originating
> from Navy.
>
>
And babies come from Storks.
Right. exactly who in the "navy" made the request? through what channels?
Vince
Jack Linthicum
"Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights"
By ELISABETH BUMILLER, NYT, May 15, 2003.
...The most elaborate - and criticized - White House event so far was
Mr. Bush's speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of
major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of
people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Mr.
[Scott] Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations
days before Mr. Bush's landing in a flight suit and his early evening
speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Mr. Sforza and his aides had
choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of
the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's
right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to
perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a
single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image makers
call "magic hour light," which cast a golden glow on Mr. Bush.
"If you looked at the TV picture, you saw there was flattering light on
his left cheek and slight shadowing on his right," Mr. King said. "It
looked great."
Vince
banner, Bush said it was put up by the ship's crew. But the White House
later conceded it produced and paid for the banner as part of the
president's visit.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/speech.anniversary/
Grey Satterfield
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>> message news:dt7lm1pr8g57n5sm2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent
>> days?
>>>
>>> Major as compared to what?
>>
>> You want to call it 'minor'?
>
> It depends on the criteria used. If you have no criteria to determine
> that is 'large' and what is 'small' then it is meaningless to claim
> that they are 'large.'
>
> What is a 'large operation?' Two soldiers? Ten? A hundred? A
> thousand?
Correct. The argument over whether the Mission Accomplished!" banner was
correct or not turns on whether the actions that have taken place since were
"major operations." But what is or is not a "major operation" is in the eye
of the beholder and, as this thread has demonstrated, how one defines the
term turns on one's political persuasion. In short the argument is a waste
of everybody's time because there is no way to determine it decisively.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:00:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
> <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:km5mm1lhha2lknvk1...@4ax.com...
>>> However, not to be
>>> forgotten are the frequent caveats issued by all the top folk on the
>>> 'long road ahead' theme before and after.
>>
>> For Gawd's sake, it was we lefties/pinkos/Saddam lovers who were saying just
>> that while Bush was shreeking 'Mission Accomplished'!
>
> Actually what you were shrieking was more along the lines of: "Wah! I
> hate Bush! Why did the Americans elect a President who looks out for
> American interests rather than European interests?"
>
> And you guys never foresaw the Iraqi elections either.
The don't want to talk about the Iraqi elections, either.
Grey Satterfield
Jack Love
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:ih1lm1damau5gte0q...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:17:16 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
>> <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In message <5Ahaf.4238$m81....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Mark
>> >Test <MAR...@peoplepc.com> writes
>> >>"Michael W Cook" <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:BF8ECB90.1833D%Nuff...@hotmail.com...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Mission Accomplished"
>> >>>
>> >>Major combat operations have been over ever since that statement.
>> >
>> >I'd have called actions like the clearance of Fallujah to be a pretty
>> >"major combat operation", myself.
>> >
>> >But I guess if you call a tail a leg, that means my cat has five legs.
>>
>> One of the interesting points about the 'major combat operations are
>> over' phrase is that it was requested by CENTCOM because it was
>> supposed to trigger NATO involvement in policing Iraq. Which, of
>> course, the French, Germans and Belgians promptly welshed on.
>>
>> And Mr Cook, whose altitude equals pond scum...apparently doesn't
>> understand that most military operations are broken up into 'missions'
>> with specific objectives thus ABRAHAM LINCOLN's crew could justly say
>> 'Mission Accomplished' with no effect on other events elsewhere.
>
>So that 'Mission' accomplished was minor?
Did I say that it was 'minor'? Or, did you make that up?
>Gawd ... these people do have to scrabble around in their own defence, don't
>they.
>One day they might learn that it's easier to talk sense.
>
If you had a clue you wouldn't require endless reiterated explanations
of what is obvious to someone with an IQ of at least British room
temperature.
Grey Satterfield
Indeed, it's hard to overstate the level of anti-Americanism in Europe these
days, particularly among the highbrow intelligentsia. There is an
interesting piece on the phenomenon by James Traub in this week's New York
Times Magazine, lf all places:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30wwln.html
Traub uses as a horrible example the British playwright, Harold Pinter,
about whom he says, "Pinter's politics are so extreme that they're almost
impossible to parody. "Mr. Bush and his gang," he said in a speech as the
war in Iraq approached, "are determined, quite simply, to control the world
and the world's resources. And they don't give a damn how many people they
murder on the way."
Traub goes on to point out that a lot of Americans, such as Noam Chomsky and
Gore Vidal are just as deranged as Pinter.
By Pinter's standards Michael Cook seems rational -- well, almost. :>)
Grey Satterfield
Jack Love
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Jack Love" <jackxx...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:km5mm1lhha2lknvk1...@4ax.com...
>> However, not to be
>> forgotten are the frequent caveats issued by all the top folk on the
>> 'long road ahead' theme before and after.
>
>For Gawd's sake, it was we lefties/pinkos/Saddam lovers who were saying just
>that while Bush was shreeking 'Mission Accomplished'!
I believe your phrases were in the vein of "long road to find no
WMD". And "it's hopeless" and "Bush is Stupid" and "Bush
Lied"...etc.
>Surreyman
>
Jack Love
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> Would you like to define 'major combat operations' so we can be sure
>> to communicate?
>
>Er ... a lot of people trying to kill each other with accompanying
>bang-bangs?
Numbers are always good when defining relative sizes of things like
major vs minor vs low intensity. Size comparisons sort of require
that.
>Or does anything less than D-Day (or, conveniently, less than the West Iraq
>numbers) not count?
You're supposed to be making the definitions...do YOU want D-Day to be
'major' and the lower bound of that ? Do YOU want battalion size
operations vs hole in the walls to 'major' or 'minor'?
>Gawd! ...
An expletive with no content...I'm simply trying to clarify things
BEFORE we go through another round of leftist mental deficit
exploitation.
>Surreyman
>
D. Patterson
a.spencer3 wrote:
> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
> message news:gkomm11921beqk4uf...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:32:03 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>><a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>>>
> in
>
>>>message news:dt7lm1pr8g57n5sm2...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
>>>><a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent
>>>>>
>>>days?
>>>
>>>>Major as compared to what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You want to call it 'minor'?
>>>
>>It depends on the criteria used. If you have no criteria to determine
>>that is 'large' and what is 'small' then it is meaningless to claim
>>that they are 'large.'
>>
>>What is a 'large operation?' Two soldiers? Ten? A hundred? A
>>thousand?
>>
>>
>
> Do you want to call recent operations in western Iraq as minor or major?
> Just needs a 'major' or 'minor', not a bloody essay.
>
> Surreyman
>
>
>
Minor operations
a.spencer3
"D. Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote in message
news:436BA0D4...@fidalgo.net...
I disagree, but at least someone's willing to stop playing silly buggers.
Surreyman
Kurt Ullman
Satterfield <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote:
>Correct. The argument over whether the Mission Accomplished!" banner was
>correct or not turns on whether the actions that have taken place since were
>"major operations." But what is or is not a "major operation" is in the eye
>of the beholder and, as this thread has demonstrated, how one defines the
>term turns on one's political persuasion. In short the argument is a waste
>of everybody's time because there is no way to determine it decisively.
>
The mission accomplished banner was put up the ship's officers
before GW was scheduled to do his thing. The MA was a reference to
the carrier involved and certainly was appropriate.. the did it .
--
My general reaction to much of academia is it's like government
bureaucracy, but without the drive and efficiency.
Howard Berkowitz on alt.books.tom-clancy
Jack Linthicum
> In article <BF90F6F4.1EF5D%grey.sat...@oscn.net>, Grey
> Satterfield <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote:
>
> >Correct. The argument over whether the Mission Accomplished!" banner was
> >correct or not turns on whether the actions that have taken place since were
> >"major operations." But what is or is not a "major operation" is in the eye
> >of the beholder and, as this thread has demonstrated, how one defines the
> >term turns on one's political persuasion. In short the argument is a waste
> >of everybody's time because there is no way to determine it decisively.
> >
> The mission accomplished banner was put up the ship's officers
> before GW was scheduled to do his thing. The MA was a reference to
> the carrier involved and certainly was appropriate.. the did it .
>
>
Wrong.
D. Patterson
a.spencer3 wrote:
Your disagreement has no basis in fact. The majority of the manever
elements and combat formations have not been concurrently engaged in
such operations since 2003, consequently the units engaged in combat
have been a minority of those available in the theater and the resulting
skirmishes, engagements, and very rare battles have been very much minor
in scope with respect to quantities of forces, types of forces engaged,
and losses incurred by friendly and enemy forces. Enemy forces have not
operated a major naval warship, a major combat air force, or major gound
forces of corps or divisional strength with weapons systems larger than
small weapons since the surrender of the Iraqi government in 2003.
Fred J. McCall
:On 4/11/05 13:39, in article quomm11eqomm5md51...@4ax.com,
:"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net remove underscore> wrote:
:>
:> And you guys never foresaw the Iraqi elections either.
:
:Elections that huge numbers of people boycotted
A higher percentage of Iraqis voted in their last election than folks
in the UK or the US typically have vote in theirs.
:and where the main aim was
:to install a US puppet government.
Liar.
:Some democracy.
Yeah, your sort always hate democracy. You think the majority are
stupid and ought to just believe whatever bilge you are currently
spouting at them....
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
Oh, I see. You don't believe the cite that you yourself posted.
This, too, ought to tell you that the problem is the view through your
hatred and not reality.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
These two things are NOT inconsistent, Vinnie, regardless of the use
of the word 'but' by yet another English-ignorant journalist.
Who originated the request for the banner, Vinnie? The White House
says it was the ship. The Navy says it was the ship. Vinnie
disbelieves them all because he hates George Bush so much that reality
isn't allowed to intrude too far....
Fred J. McCall
:"D. Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote in message
:news:436BA0D4...@fidalgo.net...
:>
:> a.spencer3 wrote:
:>
:> > "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
:> > message news:gkomm11921beqk4uf...@4ax.com...
:> >
:> >>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:32:03 GMT, "a.spencer3"
:> >><a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
:> >>
:> >>
:> >>>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
:> >>>message news:dt7lm1pr8g57n5sm2...@4ax.com...
:> >>>
:> >>>>On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, "a.spencer3"
:> >>>><a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
:> >>>>
:> >>>>>So you haven't had any major combat operations in West Iraq in recent days?
:> >>>
:> >>>>Major as compared to what?
:> >>>>
:> >>>You want to call it 'minor'?
:> >>
:> >>It depends on the criteria used. If you have no criteria to determine
:> >>that is 'large' and what is 'small' then it is meaningless to claim
:> >>that they are 'large.'
:> >>
:> >>What is a 'large operation?' Two soldiers? Ten? A hundred? A
:> >>thousand?
:> >
:> > Do you want to call recent operations in western Iraq as minor or major?
:> > Just needs a 'major' or 'minor', not a bloody essay.
:>
:> Minor operations
:
:Thank you.
:I disagree, but at least someone's willing to stop playing silly buggers.
But the disagreement brings us right back to your 'playing silly
buggers'. You disagree. Why? What's your criteria for
distinguishing between 'major' and 'minor' operations?
Perhaps your view is coloured by the size of the UK military? What's
'major operations' for most folks is not for the US military.
Jack Linthicum
> :>
> :Some months later, when questioned about the "Mission Accomplished"
> :banner, Bush said it was put up by the ship's crew. But the White House
> :later conceded it produced and paid for the banner as part of the
> :president's visit.
> :
> :http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/30/speech.anniversary/
>
> These two things are NOT inconsistent, Vinnie, regardless of the use
> of the word 'but' by yet another English-ignorant journalist.
>
> Who originated the request for the banner, Vinnie? The White House
> says it was the ship. The Navy says it was the ship. Vinnie
> disbelieves them all because he hates George Bush so much that reality
> isn't allowed to intrude too far....
>
Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights"
Charlie Wolf
on our behalf have not gone unnoticed, and we simply wanted to pass
our sincerest thanks to you for your continuing efforts to support us
with the great Satan, we could use your further support in two
critical areas. Number one, we are quickly running out of money and
would appreciate your generous donation to any one of a number of our
organizations in the U.S. Just go to any mosque and ask where you can
contribute - or, as an alternative, you may contact the Council on
number two is that we are quickly running out of suitable soldiers in
killing our terrorists eh, I mean insurgents in ever increasing
numbers and our vehicle drivers are really only worth about one trip
apiece. So, in your continuing efforts to support us, we would love
to hear from you regarding your desires to provide direct assistance.
Again - thank you so much for your support here on the internet for
our cause.
Sincerely - al Queda
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:42:12 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
<Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/11/05 15:22, in article s5vmm116drv7lfqrd...@4ax.com,
>"Charlie Wolf" <charli...@noemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
>> <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snipped...
Peter Skelton
Let's compromise on Bush's definition.
Peter Skelton
Laurence Doering
>
> Your disagreement has no basis in fact. The majority of the manever
> elements and combat formations have not been concurrently engaged in
> such operations since 2003, consequently the units engaged in combat
> have been a minority of those available in the theater and the resulting
> skirmishes, engagements, and very rare battles have been very much minor
> in scope with respect to quantities of forces, types of forces engaged,
> and losses incurred by friendly and enemy forces.
> Enemy forces have not operated a major naval warship, a major combat air
> force, or major ground forces of corps or divisional strength with weapons
> systems larger than small weapons since the surrender of the Iraqi government
> in 2003.
Unless I'm much mistaken, enemy forces didn't do any of these things before
the fall of Baghdad either. Iraq didn't have any "major naval warships" to
operate in March 2003. The Iraqi air force never contested the skies during
Operation Iraqi Freedom -- it would have been kind of difficult, since many of
their aircraft were hauled off into the desert and buried to try to hide them
from Coalition forces. The Iraqi army never engaged in any major corps or
divisional strength operations that I know of (unless changing into civvies,
burning or hiding their uniforms, and going home was a coordinated military
operation), and never seriously resisted the advancing American and British
forces with any weapons heavier than mortars.
To top it off, the Iraqi government never formally surrendered to the
Coalition. Saddam was in hiding, after all, and for all intents and
purposes he was the Iraqi government.
ljd
Vince
>
>
> Your disagreement has no basis in fact. The majority of the manever
> elements and combat formations have not been concurrently engaged in
> such operations since 2003, consequently the units engaged in combat
> have been a minority of those available in the theater and the resulting
> skirmishes, engagements, and very rare battles have been very much minor
> in scope with respect to quantities of forces, types of forces engaged,
> and losses incurred by friendly and enemy forces. Enemy forces have not
> operated a major naval warship, a major combat air force, or major gound
> forces of corps or divisional strength with weapons systems larger than
> small weapons since the surrender of the Iraqi government in 2003.
>
>
>
Why do you think the term "guerrilla" was invented ?
Vince
Vince
I dont believe it.
You bleive it
can you prove it?
Vince
Vince
Where is the paper trail?
Ships dont request thigns. people do.
Vince
D. Patterson
Laurence Doering wrote:
You are very much mistaken and entirely wrong. Although Iraq possessed
few naval warships of any great size, those they did possess were sunk
or captured in the ensuing major combat operations. The Iraqi Air Force
combat aircraft were systematically destroyed in the air, destroyed on
the ground, interned in Iran, captured in dispersals and buried caches,
and the air force facilities were captured during the major combat
operations. Consequently, the subsequent Iraqi insurgent forces have not
engaged in any major combat air operations, offensive or defensive,
since the end of major combat operations in March 2003. However,
friendly Iraqi air forces have resumed minor air operations in support
of minor combat operations against the enemy Iraqi insurgent forces. The
Iraqi Army did in fact engage the U.S. Army, British Army, and their
allies in major combat operations with divisional, corps, and army
assigned combat units. The Iraqis did employ artillery, ballistic
missiles, and other major weapons systems larger than infantry mortars,
contrary to your misleading claims. The Iraqi Army was, IIRC, rated as
the fourth largest army in the world in terms of manpower strength and
AFVs. The Iraqi Army possessed more main battle tanks (MBT) than the
combined total possessed by the British Army and the French Army.
Following the conclusion of major combat operations in 2003, the enemy
Iraqi insurgents have not maneuvered or engaged Iraqi tanks in major or
minor combat engagements or battles. The Iraqi armed services did in
fact sign formal surrender documents, and the members of the former
Iraqi government have surrendered and/or been captured.
Now, if you wish to maintain the ridiculous claim that major combat
operations continued after 2003, please demonstrate how, when, and where
the enemy Iraqi insurgents have concurrently engaged the majority of the
U.S. and British armed forces in Iraq with air, sea, and ground forces
in organized combat operations with armored forces, infantry forces, air
forces, and/or sea forces of major force strenghts of a division, air
wing, and/or naval battle group.
Paul J. Adam
<grey.sat...@oscn.net> writes
>Traub uses as a horrible example the British playwright, Harold Pinter,
>about whom he says, "Pinter's politics are so extreme that they're almost
>impossible to parody. "
Private Eye had a go in their most recent issue, with passable
success...
Pinter is about as "mainstream" for the UK as Noam Chomsky is for the
US. He's apparently good at writing plays, but as tradition demands this
elevates his facile political opinions (summarised as "whatever happens,
it was bad and it was all America's fault!") beyond analysis or
criticism.
I have no desire to defend Pinter, just to explain that he does not
enjoy any serious credibility outside the readership of the New
Statesman (but then they'll also believe anyone who tells them that
George Bush Jr. used depleted-uranium cluster bombs to cause the recent
earthquake in Asia, because... because... well, just because!)
--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2
Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
La N
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QiRq+8Qy...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <BF90FA3E.1EF61%grey.sat...@oscn.net>, Grey Satterfield
> <grey.sat...@oscn.net> writes
>>Traub uses as a horrible example the British playwright, Harold Pinter,
>>about whom he says, "Pinter's politics are so extreme that they're almost
>>impossible to parody. "
>
> Private Eye had a go in their most recent issue, with passable success...
>
> Pinter is about as "mainstream" for the UK as Noam Chomsky is for the US.
> He's apparently good at writing plays, but as tradition demands this
> elevates his facile political opinions (summarised as "whatever happens,
> it was bad and it was all America's fault!") beyond analysis or criticism.
>
> I have no desire to defend Pinter, just to explain that he does not enjoy
> any serious credibility outside the readership of the New Statesman (but
> then they'll also believe anyone who tells them that George Bush Jr. used
> depleted-uranium cluster bombs to cause the recent earthquake in Asia,
> because... because... well, just because!)
>
You will not believe how many "intelligent" people (and yes I've met them)
believe that Bush caused last year's tsunami via underground nuclear
explosion tests.
- nilita
William Black
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QiRq+8Qy...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> I have no desire to defend Pinter, just to explain that he does not
> enjoy any serious credibility outside the readership of the New
> Statesman
Speaking as a New Statesman reader (and subscriber) he's considered a touch
'over the top' even there.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Bryn
<nilita20...@yahoo.com> writes
I've seen the craters.. %-P~
>
Posting from soc.culture.scottish
--
Bryn
"I am not Roo," said Piglet loudly.
"I am Piglet!"
"Yes, dear, yes," said Kanga soothingly.
"And imitating Piglet's voice too!
So clever of him."
To email remove GREMILNS
Bryn
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:QiRq+8Qy...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I have no desire to defend Pinter, just to explain that he does not
>> enjoy any serious credibility outside the readership of the New
>> Statesman
>
>Speaking as a New Statesman reader (and subscriber) he's considered a touch
>'over the top' even there.
A bit of a poseur... IMO
>
Posting from soc.culture.scottish
--
Bryn
I dreamt that I ate a 10LB marshmallow.
In the morning my pillow was gone.
Anon
To email remove GREMILNS
T3
"mission accomplished" thing than before it was declared! So your point
is a little dull, if not completely invalid...
Michael W Cook
Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote:
> On 11/4/05 9:22 AM, in article s5vmm116drv7lfqrd...@4ax.com,
> "Charlie Wolf" <charli...@noemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:01:59 +0000 (UTC), Michael W Cook
>> <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mission Accomplished"
>>>
>>> Hilarious.
>>>
>>> I remember someone else who was equally as cocky...
>> Thank you for posting your latest Bush-hating garbage. Your efforts
>> on our behalf have not gone unnoticed, and we simply wanted to pass
>> our sincerest thanks to you for your continuing efforts to support us
>> and our great cause. Please know that, while we continue our struggle
>> with the great Satan, we could use your further support in two
>> critical areas. Number one, we are quickly running out of money and
>> would appreciate your generous donation to any one of a number of our
>> organizations in the U.S. Just go to any mosque and ask where you can
>> contribute - or, as an alternative, you may contact the Council on
>> American Islamic Relations (CAIR) for direct contributions. Problem
>> number two is that we are quickly running out of suitable soldiers in
>> our war against the Great Satan. You see, evil American forces are
>> killing our terrorists eh, I mean insurgents in ever increasing
>> numbers and our vehicle drivers are really only worth about one trip
>> apiece. So, in your continuing efforts to support us, we would love
>> to hear from you regarding your desires to provide direct assistance.
>> Again - thank you so much for your support here on the internet for
>> our cause.
>> Sincerely - al Queda
>
> Indeed, it's hard to overstate the level of anti-Americanism in Europe these
> days,
Only Europe ?
Try the whole of the world.
But it's not surprising about Europe really, we saw first hand how Hitler
and the Nazis lied to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign state.
Just like the US did in Iraq.
The latest reports breaking are of CIA Gulags in Romania and Poland.
I wonder if Bush knows where Romania is on the map ?
> particularly among the highbrow intelligentsia. There is an
> interesting piece on the phenomenon by James Traub in this week's New York
> Times Magazine, lf all places:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30wwln.html
>
> Traub uses as a horrible example the British playwright, Harold Pinter,
> about whom he says, "Pinter's politics are so extreme that they're almost
> impossible to parody. "Mr. Bush and his gang," he said in a speech as the
> war in Iraq approached, "are determined, quite simply, to control the world
> and the world's resources. And they don't give a damn how many people they
> murder on the way."
>
> Traub goes on to point out that a lot of Americans, such as Noam Chomsky and
> Gore Vidal are just as deranged as Pinter.
>
> By Pinter's standards Michael Cook seems rational -- well, almost. :>)
I happen to quite agree with what Pinter says about Bush, except Bush hasn't
the intellectual ability to have thought up any of what is happening at
present on his own. But it's quite clear who is pulling his strings and
their aims and policies were all well documented long before Bush even
gained office.
Michael W Cook
"Charlie Wolf" <charli...@noemail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for posting
Don't mention it, the pleasure was all mine I assure you.
Laurence Doering
>
> Laurence Doering wrote:
>
>>>Enemy forces have not operated a major naval warship, a major combat air
>>>force, or major ground forces of corps or divisional strength with weapons
>>>systems larger than small weapons since the surrender of the Iraqi government
>>>in 2003.
>>
>> Unless I'm much mistaken, enemy forces didn't do any of these things before
>> the fall of Baghdad either. Iraq didn't have any "major naval warships" to
>> operate in March 2003. The Iraqi air force never contested the skies during
>> Operation Iraqi Freedom -- it would have been kind of difficult, since many of
>> their aircraft were hauled off into the desert and buried to try to hide them
>> from Coalition forces. The Iraqi army never engaged in any major corps or
>> divisional strength operations that I know of (unless changing into civvies,
>> burning or hiding their uniforms, and going home was a coordinated military
>> operation), and never seriously resisted the advancing American and British
>> forces with any weapons heavier than mortars.
>>
>> To top it off, the Iraqi government never formally surrendered to the
>> Coalition. Saddam was in hiding, after all, and for all intents and
>> purposes he was the Iraqi government.
>
> few naval warships of any great size, those they did possess were sunk
> or captured in the ensuing major combat operations.
In 2002, the Iraqi navy possessed one Soviet-made Osa fast patrol craft,
5 (inoperable) inshore patrol craft, 3 mine-warfare craft, 1 auxiliary
vessel, and a yacht with a helicopter deck (Saddam's personal yacht,
I believe.) [1]
A navy whose major surface combatant was an Osa-class FAC did not possess
any "naval warships of any great size".
Iraq did not conduct any meaningful naval operations in the spring of 2003,
and certainly didn't "operate a major naval warship" during OIF.
> The Iraqi Air Force combat aircraft were systematically destroyed in the
> air, destroyed on the ground, interned in Iran, captured in dispersals
> and buried caches, and the air force facilities were captured during the
> major combat operations.
Half of the Iraqi Air Force was interned in Iran after they flew there during
Operation Desert Storm in 1991, not in 2003.
How many Iraqi aircraft were destroyed in the air during OIF? I don't think
the Iraqi air force ever left the ground, did they? A total of 7 Coalition
aircraft were lost, all to enemy ground fire (4 AH-64, 2 AH-1, and 1 A-10). [2]
> Consequently, the subsequent Iraqi insurgent forces have not
> engaged in any major combat air operations, offensive or defensive,
> since the end of major combat operations in March 2003.
My point is that there were no Iraqi "major combat air operations" before
the fall of Baghdad either.
> The Iraqi Army did in fact engage the U.S. Army, British Army, and their
> allies in major combat operations with divisional, corps, and army
> assigned combat units.
When and where did the Iraqi army conduct major combat operations with
corps or army sized units during OIF? Enduring aerial bombardment in
static defensive positions for a week or two and then dispersing or
surrendering en masse doesn't count as "major combat operations" in
my opinion.
> The Iraqis did employ artillery, ballistic missiles, and other major
> weapons systems larger than infantry mortars, contrary to your misleading
> claims.
When and where? I remember 1 Silkworm missile that "attacked" a Kuwaiti
shopping mall and sporadic surface-to-surface missiles fired in the general
direction of Kuwait, but no ballistic missile attacks. Did the Iraqi army use
artillery in an organized fashion, or were there just sporadic incidents
of somebody firing a few rounds toward whatever happened to be downrange?
> The Iraqi Army was, IIRC, rated as the fourth largest army in the world
> in terms of manpower strength and AFVs. The Iraqi Army possessed more
> main battle tanks (MBT) than the combined total possessed by the British
> Army and the French Army.
I think you're confusing the Iraqi army of 2003 with the pre-Desert Storm
Iraqi army. How many of Iraq's MBTs were destroyed in 1991? How many were
left by 2003, and how many of those were operable?
The total strength of the Iraqi army in 2003 was apparently on the order
of 120,000 men [3]. The "fourth largest army in the world" figure is
from 1991, not 2003.
> Following the conclusion of major combat operations in 2003, the enemy
> Iraqi insurgents have not maneuvered or engaged Iraqi tanks in major or
> minor combat engagements or battles.
How many times did Coalition forces engage Iraqi armor in combat *before*
the conclusion of major combat operations in 2003? Destroying immobile
tanks in static positions doesn't really count.
> The Iraqi armed services did in fact sign formal surrender documents,
Did they really, or are you talking about individual military commanders
surrendering their units en masse?
> and the members of the former Iraqi government have surrendered and/or
> been captured.
But, as far as I know, there was no formal surrender marking a cessation
of hostilities by representatives of the Iraqi government. Feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong. Individual members of the former government
giving themselves up to Coalition forces don't count.
> Now, if you wish to maintain the ridiculous claim that major combat
> operations continued after 2003...
I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that the Iraqi armed forces did
not engage in your definition of "major combat operations" before the
fall of Baghdad either.
> ... please demonstrate how, when, and where
> the enemy Iraqi insurgents have concurrently engaged the majority of the
> U.S. and British armed forces in Iraq with air, sea, and ground forces
> in organized combat operations with armored forces, infantry forces, air
> forces, and/or sea forces of major force strenghts of a division, air
> wing, and/or naval battle group.
When did the Iraqi armed forces engage the majority of US and British
forces with "air, sea, and ground forces in organized combat operations"
*before* President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended
on 1 May, 2003?
ljd
[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021215-iraq02.htm
[2] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/uscentaf_oif_report_30apr2003.pdf
Grey Satterfield
Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:QiRq+8Qy...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I have no desire to defend Pinter, just to explain that he does not
>> enjoy any serious credibility outside the readership of the New
>> Statesman
>
> Speaking as a New Statesman reader (and subscriber) he's considered a touch
> 'over the top' even there.
Yeah, as the guy who wrote the NYT Magazine piece observed, (paraphrase)
"Pinter is so extreme that it's hard to parody him."
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <BF90FA3E.1EF61%grey.sat...@oscn.net>, Grey Satterfield
> <grey.sat...@oscn.net> writes
>> Traub uses as a horrible example the British playwright, Harold Pinter,
>> about whom he says, "Pinter's politics are so extreme that they're almost
>> impossible to parody. "
>
> Private Eye had a go in their most recent issue, with passable
> success...
>
> Pinter is about as "mainstream" for the UK as Noam Chomsky is for the
> US. He's apparently good at writing plays, but as tradition demands this
> elevates his facile political opinions (summarised as "whatever happens,
> it was bad and it was all America's fault!") beyond analysis or
> criticism.
>
> I have no desire to defend Pinter, just to explain that he does not
> enjoy any serious credibility outside the readership of the New
> Statesman (but then they'll also believe anyone who tells them that
> George Bush Jr. used depleted-uranium cluster bombs to cause the recent
> earthquake in Asia, because... because... well, just because!)
Artists as a class seem to hold extreme political views. For example John
le Carre's hatred of American policy these days is at least as deranged as
Pinter's. Nevertheless, I continue to admire le Carre's art -- he just
needs to leave real life politics to the grownups.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
<br...@GREMILNSfinhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <dkgm24$rc7$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:QiRq+8Qy...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> I have no desire to defend Pinter, just to explain that he does not
>>> enjoy any serious credibility outside the readership of the New
>>> Statesman
>>
>> Speaking as a New Statesman reader (and subscriber) he's considered a touch
>> 'over the top' even there.
>
> A bit of a poseur... IMO
>>
>
> Posting from soc.culture.scottish
Whew! When I first read Bryn's post, I thought that he had written, "Posing
from soc.culture.scotish. What a relief! :>)
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
W Cook" <Nuff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you want to talk about "politics [that] are so extreme that they're
almost impossible to parody"? What a confession from Michael: "I happen to
quite agree with what Pinter says about Bush . . . " Clearly, I was wrong
when I said that compared to Pinter, Michael is (almost) rational. Michael
DOES need to get back on those meds. :>)
Grey Satterfield
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> Vince <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> :> Vince Brannigan <ne...@firelaw.us> wrote:
:> :> :>
:> :> :> :of course the white house had the sign made
:> :> :>
:> :> :> Of course it was, Vinnie. Of course it was....
:> :> :>
:> :> :White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign
:> :> :Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say
:> :>
:> :> Ah, you left out the little bit that the ship requested it (through
:> :> Navy channels), presumably in order to try to make it sound like it
:> :> was a 'put up job' by the Administration.
:> :>
:> :> Vinnie pressed on 'mission accomplished sign
:> :> admits White House didn't really originate it
:> :> but just provided services on request originating
:> :> from Navy.
:> :>
:> :> Vinnie pressed on 'mission accomplished sign
:> :> admits White House didn't really originate it
:> :> but just provided services on request originating
:> :> from Navy.
:> :
:> :And babies come from Storks.
:> :
:> :Right. exactly who in the "navy" made the request? through what channels?
:>
:> Oh, I see. You don't believe the cite that you yourself posted.
:>
:> This, too, ought to tell you that the problem is the view through your
:> hatred and not reality.
:
:the white house claimed it.
The Navy also claimed it.
:I dont believe it.
:
:You bleive it
:
:can you prove it?
I don't have to prove someone is telling the truth, Vinnie. YOU have
to prove they're lying. And you need a better bit of evidence than "I
hate George Bush and so should you".