Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
multi
<nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>Bush draws Vietnam lesson for Iraq: don't quit
>"We'll succeed unless we quit," promised Bush, the second US president to
>visit post-war Vietnam, after talks with close ally Australian Prime
>Minister John Howard on the sidelines of an Asia Pacific summit in Hanoi.
>
>No dumbass, the lesson is ***don't get stuck for decades in a war you
>can't win****
Did he have the army pull down the statue of Ho Chi Minh that he was
standing next to?
the Moderator
"multi" <mu...@asm.org> wrote in message
news:6rhsl2hergml12s4c...@4ax.com...
The Vietnam generation wants to lose this war so badly they will be the
first Americans to surrender a war they are winning.
John B.
We're winning? How do you figure that?
annika1980
George Orwell wrote:
> Bush draws Vietnam lesson for Iraq: don't quit
> "We'll succeed unless we quit," promised Bush, the second US president to
> visit post-war Vietnam, after talks with close ally Australian Prime
> Minister John Howard on the sidelines of an Asia Pacific summit in Hanoi.
>
> No dumbass, the lesson is ***don't get stuck for decades in a war you
> can't win****
> him that's enough, we'd still be over there. jackasses!
"At least Bush went to Vietnam. Finally." - Bill Maher
I can't figure out what he expected to gain from that trip. Is he going
to claim that we won that one as well? Mission Accomplished! Surely
he knew that his visit would invite countless discussion parallelling
the two conflicts. Maybe Cheney sent him hoping he'd get shot over
there? Or was Bush just looking for Jane Fonda?
the Moderator
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164045341.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> the Moderator wrote:
> > "multi" <mu...@asm.org> wrote in message
> > news:6rhsl2hergml12s4c...@4ax.com...
> >
> > first Americans to surrender a war they are winning.
>
>
> We're winning? How do you figure that?
Iraq is no longer a threat, The Iraqi's have a new constitution. Iraqi's
have a freely elected government.
Kind of like Italy, Germany and Japan.
John B.
Iraq is in a state of utter chaos. Iraqis are slaughtered by the
hundreds every day. The "constitution" isn't worth the paper it's
written on. The "freely elected government" is completely
dysfunctional. There is no electricity in most of the country. To
compare Iraq to Japan or Germany or Italy is delusional. P.S., Iraq
never was a threat.
the Moderator
>
> Iraq is in a state of utter chaos. Iraqis are slaughtered by the
> hundreds every day. The "constitution" isn't worth the paper it's
> written on. The "freely elected government" is completely
> dysfunctional. There is no electricity in most of the country. To
> compare Iraq to Japan or Germany or Italy is delusional. P.S., Iraq
> never was a threat.
The action of criminals and terrorists is something you want to run away
from? Iraq never a threat? I suggest you read the Butler Report.
mont...@aol.com
Vietnam had popular support...so where is the popular support for the
Islamo-Fascists today (besides in the U.S. Democratic Party)?
annika1980
Hey look, it's a strawman!
Who in the Democratic party supports the Islama-fascists?
It might help the discussion if you first defined what an
Islama-fascist is.
John B.
I never said anything about "running away." Your claim was that we are
"winning" the war in Iraq. We are in the middle of a war there that the
Bush cabal never expected and that we can't win by any conventional
means. You may recall that the original plan was to (A) overthrow SH,
(B) find and destroy his WMD and (C) install a democratic government in
Iraq with the support and cooperation of a thankful populace that would
"welcome us as liberators." What are you going to say - one out of
three ain't bad?
Chris Bellomy
:
It amuses me that modern Republicans still haven't figured out
that Al Qaeda is a *right* wing extremist organization. This ain't
the Cold War, fellas.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
mont...@aol.com
Pretty much all of them except Joe Lieberman. Is there anyone else
here who remembers when patriots didn't provide aid and comfort to the
enemy?
mont...@aol.com
> that Al Qaeda is a *right* wing extremist organization.
I don't know how you can ascribe a political affiliation to religious
extremists, but in the end it doesn't matter: When you go too far Left
or Right you end up in the same place.
S McFarlane
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164046417.1...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I can't figure out what he expected to gain from that trip. Is he going
> to claim that we won that one as well? Mission Accomplished! Surely
> he knew that his visit would invite countless discussion parallelling
> the two conflicts. Maybe Cheney sent him hoping he'd get shot over
> there? Or was Bush just looking for Jane Fonda?
I think it was mostly economics-driven. He wants normal trade relations
with them. I would guess that getting more cozy with Vietnam also plays a
role in our thinking about the US-China relationship.
Scott
mont...@aol.com
Stephen Hayes has been doing some fascinating reporting, too,
particularly concerning captured documentary materials in the wake of
Iraq's liberation: It seems Saddam Hussein's military had trained at
leat 8000 Islamo-fascists at three camps in Iraq in the months
immediately prior to the March 2003 coalition invasion. I'm guessing
those 8000 jihadis weren't training to fight annika's "strawmen," ya
know what I mean?
John B.
I don't know who Stephen Hayes is, but I suspect he's full of shit. If
there were terrorist training of that magnitude going on in Iraq before
the invasion, why wouldn't US forces have uncovered any evidence of it?
the Moderator
"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
news:0T3l20u...@redshark.goodshow.net...
>
> It amuses me that modern Republicans still haven't figured out
> that Al Qaeda is a *right* wing extremist organization. This ain't
> the Cold War, fellas.
> --
> Chris Bellomy
It isn't the Republicans comparing Iraq to Vietnam.
mont...@aol.com
> the invasion, why wouldn't US forces have uncovered any evidence of it?
U.S. forces DID find the evidence. Stephen Hayes has reported on it.
It kind of puts the lie to the oft-repeated, lefty-kook charge that
Saddam "was no threat," "had no connection to terrorists," and "was a
secularist and wouldn't have anything to do with radical Islamists."
John B.
Why hasn't anybody else reported on it? Why have I seen nothing in the
press about it? Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said
anything about it? And who the hell is Stephen Hayes?
John B.
You mean it isnt the Republicans who are doing it openly.
Howard Brazee
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>It isn't the Republicans comparing Iraq to Vietnam.
At least not the pseudo-hawks who avoided serving in Vietnam.
Jack Hollis
I believe that montmach is referring to Salman Pak. Here's a quote
from Global Security. The photo of the airplane fuselage was widely
publicized.
"Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training
camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi
intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the
secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in
rotations of five or six months since 1995. Training activities
including simulated hijackings carried out in an airplane fuselage
[said to be a Boeing 707] at the camp. The camp is divided into
distinct sections. On one side of the camp young, Iraqis who were
members of Fedayeen Saddam are trained in espionage, assassination
techniques and sabotage. The Islamic militants trained on the other
side of the camp, in an area separated by a small lake, trees and
barbed wire. The militants reportedly spent time training, usually in
groups of five or six, around the fuselage of the airplane. There were
rarely more than 40 or 50 Islamic radicals in the camp at one time."
Chris Bellomy
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
: news:0T3l20u...@redshark.goodshow.net...
:>
:> It amuses me that modern Republicans still haven't figured out
:> that Al Qaeda is a *right* wing extremist organization. This ain't
:> the Cold War, fellas.
: It isn't the Republicans comparing Iraq to Vietnam.
Bush isn't a Republican? Somebody had better tell him.
Howard Brazee
>Why hasn't anybody else reported on it? Why have I seen nothing in the
>press about it? Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said
>anything about it? And who the hell is Stephen Hayes?
There's a secret Liberal cabal that has shut down the president's
mouth in this issue.
Chris Bellomy
: Since it's now trendy to compare Iraq to Vietnam: The Communists in
: Vietnam had popular support...so where is the popular support for the
: Islamo-Fascists today (besides in the U.S. Democratic Party)?
You do realize that there's no such thing as an Islamofascist,
don't you?
Oh, no, you probably don't. And you wonder why your ilk keeps
losing wars.
moorehead
On Nov 23, 1:53 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> montm...@aol.com wrote:: Since it's now trendy to compare Iraq to Vietnam: The Communists in
> : Vietnam had popular support...so where is the popular support for the
> : Islamo-Fascists today (besides in the U.S. Democratic Party)?
>
> You do realize that there's no such thing as an Islamofascist,
> don't you?
Then what do YOU call islamo-fascists, Chris?
>
> Oh, no, you probably don't. And you wonder why your ilk keeps
> losing wars.
The US rarely if ever loses military battles...we do lose wars
sometimes, when liberals are successful in convincing Americans that
the war can't be won....just imagine had the anti-war liberals NOT been
successful during the vietnam war, vietnam might not be the miserable,
dirt poor communist country it is today. Thank God the anti-war left
were marginalized during WW II.
mj
Howard Brazee
<moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The US rarely if ever loses military battles...we do lose wars
>sometimes, when liberals are successful in convincing Americans that
>the war can't be won....just imagine had the anti-war liberals NOT been
>successful during the vietnam war, vietnam might not be the miserable,
>dirt poor communist country it is today. Thank God the anti-war left
>were marginalized during WW II.
What do you think Vietnam would be like today had Nixon held the
course?
William A. T. Clark
"moorehead" <moorehea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
My niece has just returned from a vacation in Vietnam (and before you
start screaming, no, she is not one of those pinko liberals you so love
to hate). Reports are that both ends of the country appear unexpectedly
prosperous, and that they were very well accommodated and treated.
You need to leave those old prejudices at the door.
William Clark
Chris Bellomy
:
:
:> montm...@aol.com wrote:: Since it's now trendy to compare Iraq to Vietnam: The Communists in
:> : Vietnam had popular support...so where is the popular support for the
:> : Islamo-Fascists today (besides in the U.S. Democratic Party)?
:>
:> You do realize that there's no such thing as an Islamofascist,
:> don't you?
:
: Then what do YOU call islamo-fascists, Chris?
What do you call tooth fairies?
Jack Hollis
<clar...@osu.edu> wrote:
>My niece has just returned from a vacation in Vietnam (and before you
>start screaming, no, she is not one of those pinko liberals you so love
>to hate). Reports are that both ends of the country appear unexpectedly
>prosperous, and that they were very well accommodated and treated.
Vietnam's move towards a free market economy has been very beneficial.
They joined the Asean Free Trade Area in 2001 and signed a bi-lateral
trade agreement with the US in the same year. They should soon
become a member of the WTO.
Free market capitalism has been the ticket for Vietnam's growing
prosperity. Deep poverty, defined as a percent of the population
living under $1 per day, has declined significantly and is now smaller
than that of China, India, and the Philippines.
bill-o
On 24-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> Then what do YOU call islamo-fascists, Chris?
>
> What do you call tooth fairies?
Better question, what do you call Al-Quaeda and other such islamic
extremists (besides islamic extremists)?
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
Chris Bellomy
:
:
: > : Then what do YOU call islamo-fascists, Chris?
: >
: > What do you call tooth fairies?
:
: Better question, what do you call Al-Quaeda and other such islamic
: extremists (besides islamic extremists)?
I call Al Qaeda, "Al Qaeda."
I call the various warring factions inside Iraq by their various
names or descriptions, be they Shia insurgents, Sunni resistance,
or whatever.
The surest way to get in big trouble is never to understand the
dynamics of the battlefield. Lumping all Muslims together in one
monolithic category is like sticking your head four feet deep
in sand. Worse, it pretty much insures that you'll never get the
"divide" part of "divide and conquer."
mont...@aol.com
>I believe that montmach is referring to Salman Pak.<
Yes, Salman Pak and at least two other locations the training of
jihadists was conducted by elite Iraqi military forces (Samarra and
Ramadi were the other two locales). Hayes' reportage is confirmed by
interviews conducted by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime
officials and military leaders. According to Hayes, "many of the
fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close
ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese
Islamic Army."
mont...@aol.com
>Why hasn't anybody else reported on it? Why have I seen nothing in the press about it?<
Probably because Katie Couric and Bob Shieffer have no vested interest
in telling you what's happening.
>Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said anything about it?<
I wish Bush was more aggressive in defending his policies against
anti-Americans in the media but I understand why he isn't: The
President is a busy man...why should he get into "urination contests"
with people who don't know what they're talking about?
>And who the hell is Stephen Hayes?<
There's a new thing out these days...it's called "Google." Check it
out.
John B.
Google, huh? OK, I'll check it out. I've been reading stuff like the NY
Times and the Wall St. Journal, The Economist and the Financial Times.
Obviously, this has been a big waste of time. And I'm sure you're right
that President Bush is just too busy to acknowledge any evidence that
vindicates his position and proves beyond any doubt that his
pre-invasion claims were correct. I'll be looking for Stephen Hayes to
find those weapons of mass destruction soon and for Bush to say
absolutely nothing about it when he does. Now, let me go check out this
Google thing. Thanks!
annika1980
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> : Better question, what do you call Al-Quaeda and other such islamic
> : extremists (besides islamic extremists)?
>
> I call Al Qaeda, "Al Qaeda."
Some say that Al Qaeda never existed until we created it by lumping all
"non-Christian" terrorist activities under one big umbrella. You have
to have an enemy to hate, after all.
The terrorists then embraced the term as well since it made them seem
more fearsome as a big group than just a few whackos.
Head Shot
> Some say that Al Qaeda never existed
Some also say that aliens probed them in their single-wide trailer parks.
Can't believe everything people tell you.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> I call Al Qaeda, "Al Qaeda."
>
>Some say that Al Qaeda never existed until we created it by lumping all
>"non-Christian" terrorist activities under one big umbrella. You have
>to have an enemy to hate, after all.
>The terrorists then embraced the term as well since it made them seem
>more fearsome as a big group than just a few whackos.
I suspect something by that name existed before we all heard of it.
But whatever it was isn't what it is today.
Chris Bellomy
John B.
The 9/11 Commission Report has a good explanation of the origins and
history of al Qaeda. It was an indentifiable, disciplined and
well-funded organization before 9/11. Obviously, it isn't anymore.
multi
He's another one of those guys (like Ann Coulter) who keeps you
guessing as to whether he is insane, or merely taking advantage of the
stupidity of his readers. Before he latched on to this latest
gimmick, he earned his living writing for the Weekly Standard,
published by the chickenhawk warmonger William Kristol. The latter is
the guy who is on the talk shows every week, spouting such wisdom as
his famous quote three years ago --- that it was just pop psychology
to worry about the Sunnis and Shias not getting along in Iraq. He was
a key player, along with Rumsfeld and Cheney, in the PNAC group that
advocated the invasion of Iraq even before Bush took office, let alone
before 9/11. He has more recently been trying to persuade Bush to
invade Syria and Iran.
Hayes is about two years behind the times. Before we invaded, the
allegations about Salman Pak being a terrorist training facility were
advanced by Curveball and other Chalabi-paid "defectors," whose
information (and identities --- a guy who said he was a nuclear
scientist turned out to be a cab driver) proved to be completely bogus
(they were the same people who told us that the trailers that made
hydrogen for weather balloons were mobile bio weapons labs).
American troops occupied Salman Pak in April of 2003, and immediately
looked for evidence to substantiate the claims. One of the most
interested parties was Charles Duelfer, who testified about the
dangers of Salman Pak several times before we invaded. His zeal was
rewarded when he was named to replace David Kay as our head WMD
inspector, after Kay resigned in disgust when it was clear that there
was nothing to be found. Long story short, both the Senate Committee
on Intelligence and the Duelfer WMD report concluded that there was no
evidence linking Salman Pak to al Qaeda or terrorist training. It
*was* a weapons site before the first Gulf War, and a counterterrorism
training site afterward. And for the slow learners who wonder why
Saddam needed counterterrorist training, look at Iraq today. He
controlled the same factions that we can't.
Hayes did accomplish one thing --- his importuning of the
administration to release all captured documents resulted in raw,
unverified intelligence being dumped onto a government web site.
Among the documents were pre-1990 reports on how to build a nuclear
bomb. The site was shut down, but only after this very useful
information was available to the world for a couple of months. But
don't worry, it wasn't in English. It was in Arabic.
Head Shot
> annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Some say that Al Qaeda never existed until we created it by lumping
>> all "non-Christian" terrorist activities under one big umbrella.
>> You have to have an enemy to hate, after all.
>> The terrorists then embraced the term as well since it made them seem
>> more fearsome as a big group than just a few whackos.
>
> That makes some sense.
Nobody ever heard of Yassar Arafat before he orchestrated the Munich
Masscacre (and the Entebbe incident) and eventually humanity became so
afraid of him that they gave him a Nobel and a billion dollars to hide in
Switzerland in hopes that he would not lead the world to another war. I
predict that at by 2010 the Arab Coalition will elect al-Zawahiri as the
next leader of the United Nations.
S McFarlane
"annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164653883.1...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Some say that Al Qaeda never existed until we created it by lumping all
> "non-Christian" terrorist activities under one big umbrella. You have
> to have an enemy to hate, after all.
> The terrorists then embraced the term as well since it made them seem
> more fearsome as a big group than just a few whackos.
bin Laden is documented using the phrase al Qaeda as early as October 2001.
The name allegedly can be traced back as far as 1988. bin Laden's
explanation for the phrase is that it is what they called the training camps
in Afghanistan during the conflict with the USSR. The name began to be
applied to the mujahedeen, and it stuck to the present.
I don't think al Qaeda is the monolithic, well-organized entity that we've
been led to believe. That fictional version of al Qaeda may well have been
invented to give us something to direct our rage towards. But I also think
it would be foolish to underestimate their capabilities. bin Laden has
accomplished some amazing feats with 'just a few whackos'. I don't see any
reason to believe that he is incapable of doing more. The whackos don't
appear to be stupid, and they're certainly not afraid or suffer from a lack
of dedication.
Scott
mont...@aol.com
(boilerplate harangue snipped)
Thank God for the old Cut & Paste option, eh? A few hundred words
lifted from a lefty-kook website there and you managed to attack
everbody in the world except for Stephen Hayes. And, when you tried to
improvise, you got two things wrong: Hayes STILL writes for the Weekly
Standard. And Ann Coulter is NOT a guy.
mont...@aol.com
> I'll be looking for Stephen Hayes to find those weapons of mass destruction soon<
No need to wait for Hayes, Johnny B! Multi has already found evidence
of WMD programs in Iraq. Check out this blurb from our pal multi:
"Among the documents (recently captured in Iraq) were pre-1990 reports
annika1980
Miss Anne Thrope
how to spell it.
John B.
So, everything else he wrote is correct, yes?
multi
>Thank God for the old Cut & Paste option, eh?
If it's plagiarized, then a quick search on the google will find the
original, no? Good luck with that.
>A few hundred words
>lifted from a lefty-kook website there and you managed to attack
>everbody in the world except for Stephen Hayes.
I made my disapproval of Hayes pretty clear, and I said nothing about
everybody else in the world, so your comment is complete crap. It's
almost as if you can't refute anything I said, so you are just
throwing up a smokescreen of gibberish.
> And, when you tried to
>improvise, you got two things wrong: Hayes STILL writes for the Weekly
>Standard.
What I said was correct --- he was writing for the Weekly Standard
before he latched on to the Iraqi document issue as a way to separate
himself from the pack of right wingnut reporters. Whether or not he
continues to write for the Standard is of no importance to me, so I
didn't comment on it one way or the other. Your inference that I said
he stopped is your mistake, not mine. (In case English is not your
first language, maybe this will help: I enjoyed watching golf before I
joined this group, and I STILL enjoy watching golf.)
> And Ann Coulter is NOT a guy.
I have said many times that Michelle Malkin is a female version of Ann
Coulter, and I stand by it.
multi
As the old joke goes, we knew he had WMDs in the 1980's, because we
have the receipts. Rumsfeld was Reagan's personal envoy to Saddam in
those days, and helped get him all the weapons and technology he asked
for. But even professional liars like Bush now acknowledge that all
the evidence indicates that Saddam abandoned his WMD programs in the
mid-90's at the latest. If you hang on to a wrong idea longer than
Bush, you have some serious problems.
the Moderator
"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164220236.9...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> mont...@aol.com wrote:
> > > If there were terrorist training of that magnitude going on in Iraq
before
> > > the invasion, why wouldn't US forces have uncovered any evidence of
it?
> >
> > U.S. forces DID find the evidence. Stephen Hayes has reported on it.
> > It kind of puts the lie to the oft-repeated, lefty-kook charge that
> > Saddam "was no threat," "had no connection to terrorists," and "was a
> > secularist and wouldn't have anything to do with radical Islamists."
>
> Why hasn't anybody else reported on it? Why have I seen nothing in the
> anything about it? And who the hell is Stephen Hayes?
For the same reason that the networks were reporting voter fraud before and
during election day, but not a whisper since.
the Moderator
"Chris Bellomy" <pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
news:0T3l7j4...@redshark.goodshow.net...
> mont...@aol.com wrote:
> : Since it's now trendy to compare Iraq to Vietnam: The Communists in
> : Vietnam had popular support...so where is the popular support for the
> : Islamo-Fascists today (besides in the U.S. Democratic Party)?
>
> You do realize that there's no such thing as an Islamofascist,
> don't you?
>
> losing wars.
We haven't lost the war. You are just so anxious to surrender you can't
tell the difference.
the Moderator
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:i9kmm2p2a8fr7vjsk...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Nov 2006 10:58:03 -0800, "annika1980"
> But whatever it was isn't what it is today.
Thank goodness.
John B.
Having spent most of my life in and around the press, I can only shake
my head in wonder at the preposterousness of this claim. You actually
believe that the American news media knows of terrorist training camps
in Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein and has uniformly,
monolithically refused to report this? Every single press outlet in the
United States? What about the media of other countries? They all know
it, too, and are refusing to report it? And do you believe that GW Bush
has evidence of the existence of such camps and has not bothered to say
anything about it?
By the way, I've seen quite a bit in the press about voter fraud since
the election.
Bobby Knight
Be serious. Even the hawks in the military are admitting that this
can't be won.
John B.
The Marine Corps says that Anbar Province has been lost to Sunni
insurgents who cannot be defeated:
"The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in
western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according
to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence
report that set off debate in recent months about the military's
mission in Anbar province."
-- Washington Post, Nov. 28
I'm breathlessly awaiting all the howls from the right about the lying
liberal press.
Dene
moorehead wrote:
> On Nov 23, 1:53 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> > montm...@aol.com wrote:: Since it's now trendy to compare Iraq to Vietnam: The Communists in
> > : Vietnam had popular support...so where is the popular support for the
> > : Islamo-Fascists today (besides in the U.S. Democratic Party)?
> >
> > You do realize that there's no such thing as an Islamofascist,
> > don't you?
>
>
> >
> > Oh, no, you probably don't. And you wonder why your ilk keeps
> > losing wars.
>
> sometimes, when liberals are successful in convincing Americans that
> the war can't be won....just imagine had the anti-war liberals NOT been
> successful during the vietnam war, vietnam might not be the miserable,
> dirt poor communist country it is today. Thank God the anti-war left
> were marginalized during WW II.
>
> mj
Who says we lost the Vietnam War? We withdrew, having left South
Vietnam the means to defend themselves. What they didn't have, nor
ever had, was the will.
It's likely we'll do the same in Iraq. Liberate, train, leave, and if
the country turns upside down, it's ultimately due to the will of the
Iraqi people.
Even so, that doesn't mean that the war was lost. Using that logic, we
lost WW2 because half of Europe and China ended up in communist rule.
FTR, America has lost one war. The War of 1812. The Brits kicked our
asses until we cried uncle.
-Greg
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>Be serious. Even the hawks in the military are admitting that this
>can't be won.
The war is already won. Saddam is gone. No matter what happens now,
the US is ahead of the game.
Jack Hollis
>Who says we lost the Vietnam War? We withdrew, having left South
>Vietnam the means to defend themselves. What they didn't have, nor
>ever had, was the will.
In reality, two years after the US withdrew, Congress, controlled by
the Democrats of course, cut off funding for the government of SV.
That's when the South fell.
However, Vietnam was really just a battle in the Cold War. The US
lost that battle, but won the war. Vietnam has adopted a modern free
market capitalist economy and is doing quite well these days.
Jack Hollis
>It's likely we'll do the same in Iraq. Liberate, train, leave, and if
>the country turns upside down, it's ultimately due to the will of the
>Iraqi people.
>
>Even so, that doesn't mean that the war was lost. Using that logic, we
>lost WW2 because half of Europe and China ended up in communist rule.
Ultimately, the mess in Iraq is an Iraqi failure. They were given a
chance but they let sectarian division get in the way and the Sunni
are giving support to foreign terrorists who do not have their
interests at heart. When the US leaves, the Sunni are going to
realize that there are worse things than being a minority in a
democracy.
The US has achieved its main goal. An Iraq in chaos is no threat to
the US like the Iraq that existed under Saddam. In addition, anyone
who knows anything about history knows that when you solve one problem
it is always replaced by another problem. Luckily, in this case the
new problem is much more Iraq's problem that a US problem. That's why
Sparky
On 28-Nov-2006, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Marine Corps says that Anbar Province has been lost to Sunni
> insurgents who cannot be defeated:
>
> "The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in
> western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according
> to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence
> report that set off debate in recent months about the military's
> mission in Anbar province."
> -- Washington Post, Nov. 28
>
> I'm breathlessly awaiting all the howls from the right about the lying
> liberal press.
You mean like this?:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/ap-is-busted-uses-bogus-source-for.html
me
Head Shot
Post pictures of her genitals and let us vote on it.
William A. T. Clark
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
You're Larry, and I claim my $5.
William Clark
mont...@aol.com
If you have steer maunure for brains then yes, correctamundo!
mont...@aol.com
> I made my disapproval of Hayes pretty clear, and I said nothing about
> everybody else in the world, so your comment is complete crap. It's
> almost as if you can't refute anything I said, so you are just
> throwing up a smokescreen of gibberish.<
Smokescreen? Hey, fella, YOU'RE the one who tried to disparage Stephen
Hayes and his Iraq reportage by attacking conservative boogiemen (and
one conservative boogiewoman!).
> What I said was correct --- he was writing for the Weekly Standard
> before he latched on to the Iraqi document issue as a way to separate
> himself from the pack of right wingnut reporters<
Oh, okay, I get it: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
>Whether or not he
> continues to write for the Standard is of no importance to me, so I
> didn't comment on it one way or the other. Your inference that I said
> he stopped is your mistake, not mine.<
If you had used the correct tense you wouldn't have to explain yourself
now. Then again, if I had saved enough cereal box-tops I could of had
my own "Multi Decoder Ring" by now.
> Michelle Malkin is a female version of Ann
> Coulter, and I stand by it.<
Sheesh. Another conservative boogiewoman!
frisbie...@yahoo.com
S McFarlane wrote:
> "annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1164046417.1...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I can't figure out what he expected to gain from that trip. Is he going
> > to claim that we won that one as well? Mission Accomplished! Surely
> > he knew that his visit would invite countless discussion parallelling
> > the two conflicts. Maybe Cheney sent him hoping he'd get shot over
> > there? Or was Bush just looking for Jane Fonda?
>
> I think it was mostly economics-driven. He wants normal trade relations
> with them. I would guess that getting more cozy with Vietnam also plays a
> role in our thinking about the US-China relationship.
>
> Scott
Viet Nam just joined the WTO, I think.
mont...@aol.com
> have the receipts.<
More "myth from multi." Russia and France were chiefly responsible for
Saddam's arsenal.
mont...@aol.com
> Having spent most of my life in and around the press,<
Where was your paper route? Which one did you throw?
> I can only shake
> my head in wonder at the preposterousness of this claim. You actually
> believe that the American news media knows of terrorist training camps
> in Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein and has uniformly,
> monolithically refused to report this? Every single press outlet in the
> United States?<
Nobody made that claim, Scoop.
John B.
Pretty much everybody says we lost the Vietnam War, and they're right.
Germany and Japan proffered their unconditional surrenders to the
Allies. They lost, we won. The United States abandoned Vietnam when it
became apparent that we couldn't win. That's losing by any rational
definition of the term.
John B.
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2006 16:06:37 -0800, "Dene" <gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >It's likely we'll do the same in Iraq. Liberate, train, leave, and if
> >the country turns upside down, it's ultimately due to the will of the
> >Iraqi people.
> >
> >Even so, that doesn't mean that the war was lost. Using that logic, we
> >lost WW2 because half of Europe and China ended up in communist rule.
>
>
> Ultimately, the mess in Iraq is an Iraqi failure. They were given a
> chance but they let sectarian division get in the way and the Sunni
> are giving support to foreign terrorists who do not have their
> interests at heart. When the US leaves, the Sunni are going to
> realize that there are worse things than being a minority in a
> democracy.
>
> The US has achieved its main goal. An Iraq in chaos is no threat to
> the US like the Iraq that existed under Saddam.
This is ridiculous. There is no evidence that SH posed a material
threat to the US. Iraq today is, or nearly is, a failed state. Failed
states are havens for terrorist groups, because there is no central
govt. to keep them out. Or there is a governing body of some sort that
welcomes them. This is what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets
left and the Taliban came to power. This could easily happen in Iraq.
An "Iraq in chaos" could pose a huge threat to the US.
the Moderator
>
>
> The Marine Corps says that Anbar Province has been lost to Sunni
> insurgents who cannot be defeated:
>
> "The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in
> western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according
> to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence
> report that set off debate in recent months about the military's
> mission in Anbar province."
> -- Washington Post, Nov. 28
>
> I'm breathlessly awaiting all the howls from the right about the lying
> liberal press.
Do you really think a battle exists that the United States Marine Corps
could not win?
This is precisely my point. You have surrendered in the face of victory.
*******************
Distorting Marines As Martyrs
Leaked Intelligence Report Gives Path To Victory But Portrayed As Defining
Defeat
By Steve Schippert
.
.
.
When Marine Colonel Peter Devlin, currently in Ramadi, Iraq, wrote a
detailed and recently updated classified August memo on the situation in
al-Anbar province, "State of the Insurgency in Al-Anbar," he concluded that
an additional division (15,000 - 20,000 troops) would be required. The
pro-active recommendation was based on what was believed to be needed in
order to break al-Qaeda in Iraq's establishment in Anbar and the six Sunni
tribes that have aligned themselves with al-Qaeda in Iraq's Sheikh Abu Hamza
al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayyub al-Masri) and the 'emir' of the Iraqi Sunni
resistance, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. One must conclude that, as a responsible
commander of Marines, Colonel Devlin was not making the recommendation as a
means to a more dignified and glorious death and certain defeat.
Yet, the Post's opening sentence states that, according to Col. Devlin's
assessment, "The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody
insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there."
Why then a recommendation of an additional 20,000 troops if the "U.S.
military is no longer able to defeat" al-Qaeda and the insurgency? Marines
are not in the martyrdom business. If the open can be this wrong, what
ensues in the rest of the article is surely a literary minefield with
cherry-picked sentence fragments strewn about in order to support an article
that opens with its (flawed) conclusion.
.
.
.
the Moderator
>
>
> By the way, I've seen quite a bit in the press about voter fraud since
> the election.
>
Source?
Dene
John B. wrote:
>
> Pretty much everybody says we lost the Vietnam War, and they're right.
> Germany and Japan proffered their unconditional surrenders to the
> Allies. They lost, we won. The United States abandoned Vietnam when it
> became apparent that we couldn't win. That's losing by any rational
> definition of the term.
"Everybody says?" All that proves is that a myth is being repeated.
The mission of the undeclared Vietnam war was to secure South Vietnam's
borders while giving it the means to defend itself. We had no
intention of acquiring the unconditional surrender of North Vietnam.
The mission was accomplised. For at least two years, there was peace
in South Vietnam after the Americans withdrew. Had we stayed there,
defended SV, and lost, then you could say we lost the war.
Fortunately, we left and stayed away.
-Greg
John B.
Your memory is really failing you, assuming you're old enough to
remember. There was no peace in S. Vietnam for even one day after US
forces left. The last US ground forces left there in March of 1973.
Saigon fell to the NVA in the spring of 1975.
Our mission was to defeat military the Viet Cong and the NVA so that
they would abandon their designs on the "reunification" of Vietnam. It
was not to secure S. Vietnam's borders, and even if it had been, you
can't say we succeeded. We spent years trying to shut down the Ho Chi
Minh trail and were never able to do it. In 1972, we bombed Cambodia
and Laos to stop NVA troops from launching attacks from those
countries. South Vietnam's borders were never secure. We did defeat the
Viet Cong, who were pretty much gone from the scene by 1971 or so.
John B.
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164752852....@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > The Marine Corps says that Anbar Province has been lost to Sunni
> > insurgents who cannot be defeated:
> >
> > "The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in
> > western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according
> > to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence
> > report that set off debate in recent months about the military's
> > mission in Anbar province."
> > -- Washington Post, Nov. 28
> >
> > I'm breathlessly awaiting all the howls from the right about the lying
> > liberal press.
>
> Do you really think a battle exists that the United States Marine Corps
> could not win?
>
> This is precisely my point. You have surrendered in the face of victory.
>
You must be the last guy on Earth who looks at the situation in Iraq
and sees "the face of victory."
Jack Hollis
>This is ridiculous. There is no evidence that SH posed a material
>threat to the US. Iraq today is, or nearly is, a failed state. Failed
>states are havens for terrorist groups, because there is no central
>govt. to keep them out. Or there is a governing body of some sort that
>welcomes them. This is what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets
>left and the Taliban came to power. This could easily happen in Iraq.
>An "Iraq in chaos" could pose a huge threat to the US.
You fail to understand that the real threat is not Al Qaeda, but Al
Qaeda with nuclear weapons. A unified Iraq under Saddam had the
potential to eventually develop nuclear weapons. A divided Iraq in
total chaos does not.
What you also fail to understand is that if the US leaves Iraq, Al
Qaeda could find themselves in a difficult position. They are being
supported by the Sunni because Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization and
they operate out of Sunni areas in Iraq. Many of the sectarian
attacks against the Shia are being carried out by Al Qaeda. If the US
withdraws, the power vacuum will be filled by the Shia and they will
go after Al Qaeda and the Sunni.
In any case, no matter what happens, as long as a divided Iraq poses
no nuclear threat to the US, which is very unlikely, the US has traded
a big problem for a smaller one. That's the best you can hope for
these days.
John B.
Find it yourself, dude. I'm not your research assistant. And while
you're at it, maybe you can find a source for your contention that the
press was spouting off about voter fraud before the election. But I
doubt it.
Jack Hollis
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>Do you really think a battle exists that the United States Marine Corps
>could not win?
>
>This is precisely my point. You have surrendered in the face of victory.
The big problem is that the American people want a quick victory.
There's nothing wrong with the status quo. Look at the British in
Northern Ireland. They were unable to stop the IRA terrorists, but
they didn't cut and run from Northern Ireland. They continued the
fight for 30 years and eventually defeated the IRA.
The US should take a lesson from the British policy of no surrender.
But unfortunately, there are elements in the US who will accept defeat
rather than persevere until victory is achieved. Of course, what the
Brits had was a policy that NI was not open to political discussion.
The IRA never had the sense that any political party in the UK was
even thinking about giving up the fight. I wish I could say the same
for the USA.
the Moderator
You want me to source your claim???
I have an empirical source that the networks were spouting off about voter
fraud on election day. I saw it with my own eyes and so did anyone else who
watched the pundits on November 7th.
Dene
John B. wrote:
>
> Your memory is really failing you, assuming you're old enough to
> remember. There was no peace in S. Vietnam for even one day after US
> forces left. The last US ground forces left there in March of 1973.
> Saigon fell to the NVA in the spring of 1975.
Hmmm....didn't I state two years? And yes I do remember, being that I
was in high school when it happened. As for peace, there was no
invasion from the north. Skirmishes...yes, but there was an
established DMZ, similar to Korea.
> Our mission was to defeat military the Viet Cong and the NVA so that
> they would abandon their designs on the "reunification" of Vietnam. It
> was not to secure S. Vietnam's borders, and even if it had been, you
> can't say we succeeded. We spent years trying to shut down the Ho Chi
> Minh trail and were never able to do it. In 1972, we bombed Cambodia
> and Laos to stop NVA troops from launching attacks from those
> countries. South Vietnam's borders were never secure. We did defeat the
> Viet Cong, who were pretty much gone from the scene by 1971 or so.
Using your logic, we lost the Korean war too. North Korea has never
signed a peace treaty, nor officially abandoned their desire to unite
the pennisula under communist rule. The difference between these
scenarios was the will of South Korea to defend themselves. America's
commitment was similar in Korea and Vietnam. Both invasions were
repelled. Both countries were provided weapons and training. Korea
succeeded. Vietnam failed, not America.
The same scenario will play out in Iraq when we withdraw.
If you want to argue that we shouldn't have been involved in either
Vietnam or Iraq, then we're likely on the same page. But to say
America has lost either war is both fictious and unpatriotic.
-Greg
MnMikew
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote in message
news:VbGdnS6XjJRHQfDY...@centurytel.net...
irregularities happening all over. Then once the Dems were in, poof, no more
irregularities, just like magic.
John B.
Dene wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> >
> > Your memory is really failing you, assuming you're old enough to
> > remember. There was no peace in S. Vietnam for even one day after US
> > forces left. The last US ground forces left there in March of 1973.
> > Saigon fell to the NVA in the spring of 1975.
>
> Hmmm....didn't I state two years?
And yes I do remember, being that I
> was in high school when it happened. As for peace, there was no
> invasion from the north. Skirmishes...yes, but there was an
> established DMZ, similar to Korea.
They conquered South Vietnam without invading it? How did they do that?
>
> > Our mission was to defeat military the Viet Cong and the NVA so that
> > they would abandon their designs on the "reunification" of Vietnam. It
> > was not to secure S. Vietnam's borders, and even if it had been, you
> > can't say we succeeded. We spent years trying to shut down the Ho Chi
> > Minh trail and were never able to do it. In 1972, we bombed Cambodia
> > and Laos to stop NVA troops from launching attacks from those
> > countries. South Vietnam's borders were never secure. We did defeat the
> > Viet Cong, who were pretty much gone from the scene by 1971 or so.
>
> Using your logic, we lost the Korean war too. North Korea has never
> signed a peace treaty, nor officially abandoned their desire to unite
> the pennisula under communist rule. The difference between these
> scenarios was the will of South Korea to defend themselves. America's
> commitment was similar in Korea and Vietnam. Both invasions were
> repelled. Both countries were provided weapons and training. Korea
> succeeded. Vietnam failed, not America.
Oh, come on. This is truly ridiculous. Korea is partitioned, Vietnam is
not. The N. Vietnamese succeeded in unifying Vietnam under communist
rule, the N. Koreans did not.
>
> The same scenario will play out in Iraq when we withdraw.
Right. People who lack the guts to admit failure will blame the Iraqis,
just like you're blaming the S. Vietnamese.
>
> If you want to argue that we shouldn't have been involved in either
> Vietnam or Iraq, then we're likely on the same page. But to say
> America has lost either war is both fictious and unpatriotic.
To say otherwise is inane and delusional.
>
> -Greg
Dene
John B. wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Your memory is really failing you, assuming you're old enough to
> > > remember. There was no peace in S. Vietnam for even one day after US
> > > forces left. The last US ground forces left there in March of 1973.
> > > Saigon fell to the NVA in the spring of 1975.
> >
> > Hmmm....didn't I state two years?
> Yes, you stated two years of peace.
Perhaps relative peace is more accurate discriptor.
> And yes I do remember, being that I
> > was in high school when it happened. As for peace, there was no
> > invasion from the north. Skirmishes...yes, but there was an
> > established DMZ, similar to Korea.
>
> They conquered South Vietnam without invading it? How did they do that?
They invaded two years later. Where do see that I denied that?
> > > Our mission was to defeat military the Viet Cong and the NVA so that
> > > they would abandon their designs on the "reunification" of Vietnam. It
> > > was not to secure S. Vietnam's borders, and even if it had been, you
> > > can't say we succeeded. We spent years trying to shut down the Ho Chi
> > > Minh trail and were never able to do it. In 1972, we bombed Cambodia
> > > and Laos to stop NVA troops from launching attacks from those
> > > countries. South Vietnam's borders were never secure. We did defeat the
> > > Viet Cong, who were pretty much gone from the scene by 1971 or so.
> >
> > Using your logic, we lost the Korean war too. North Korea has never
> > signed a peace treaty, nor officially abandoned their desire to unite
> > the pennisula under communist rule. The difference between these
> > scenarios was the will of South Korea to defend themselves. America's
> > commitment was similar in Korea and Vietnam. Both invasions were
> > repelled. Both countries were provided weapons and training. Korea
> > succeeded. Vietnam failed, not America.
>
> Oh, come on. This is truly ridiculous. Korea is partitioned, Vietnam is
> not. The N. Vietnamese succeeded in unifying Vietnam under communist
> rule, the N. Koreans did not.
Vietnam was partitioned. It just didn't hold. North Korea have not
succeeded in invading their partition, because of the will of their
opponents, namely the South Koreans. Had South Vietnam had the same
resolve, Vietnam would have remained seperated.
> >
> > The same scenario will play out in Iraq when we withdraw.
>
> Right. People who lack the guts to admit failure will blame the Iraqis,
> just like you're blaming the S. Vietnamese.
Lack of guts is displayed by those who advocate early withdrawal or
yipping about "should have, would have, could have" hindsight, which
accomplishes nothing but weaken our political and military resolve.
South Vietnam lost their war. They had more troops, superior
equipment, but lacked the resolve. Too many John B's. Iraqis will
have a similar choice, once they are fully trained and equipped.
> > If you want to argue that we shouldn't have been involved in either
> > Vietnam or Iraq, then we're likely on the same page. But to say
> > America has lost either war is both fictious and unpatriotic.
>
> To say otherwise is inane and delusional.
Ever consider moving to Costa Rica. No military there.
-Greg
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>You fail to understand that the real threat is not Al Qaeda, but Al
>Qaeda with nuclear weapons. A unified Iraq under Saddam had the
>potential to eventually develop nuclear weapons. A divided Iraq in
>total chaos does not.
If Iraq had nuclear weapons when we invaded, they are no longer under
the control of the secular government. Saddam Hussein wasn't going
to give his weapons to Al Qaeda nor any other religious group.
If Iraq was a nuclear threat before we invaded - who has those weapons
now. Are we better off with the current owners of the WMD?
Or is the WMD argument bogus?
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Yup. Just about every network under the sun was reporting on so called
>irregularities happening all over. Then once the Dems were in, poof, no more
>irregularities, just like magic.
The administration still is responsible.
Bobby Knight
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1164752852....@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> The Marine Corps says that Anbar Province has been lost to Sunni
>> insurgents who cannot be defeated:
>>
>> "The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in
>> western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according
>> to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence
>> report that set off debate in recent months about the military's
>> mission in Anbar province."
>> -- Washington Post, Nov. 28
>>
>> I'm breathlessly awaiting all the howls from the right about the lying
>> liberal press.
>
>Do you really think a battle exists that the United States Marine Corps
>could not win?
That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
Afghanistan and Iraq with Marine battalions and just sweep all of the
bad guys away? What a dolt!
___,
\o
|
/ \
.
"Someone likes every shot"!
bk
John B.
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2006 06:42:52 -0800, "John B." <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is ridiculous. There is no evidence that SH posed a material
> >threat to the US. Iraq today is, or nearly is, a failed state. Failed
> >states are havens for terrorist groups, because there is no central
> >govt. to keep them out. Or there is a governing body of some sort that
> >welcomes them. This is what happened in Afghanistan after the Soviets
> >left and the Taliban came to power. This could easily happen in Iraq.
> >An "Iraq in chaos" could pose a huge threat to the US.
>
>
> You fail to understand that the real threat is not Al Qaeda, but Al
> Qaeda with nuclear weapons. A unified Iraq under Saddam had the
> potential to eventually develop nuclear weapons. A divided Iraq in
> total chaos does not.
So, we invaded Iraq because SH might someday have developed a nuclear
weapon, and then might have sold it to AQ, even though he hated them,
and AQ would then have used that weapon against the US. And we're
better off with Iraq as a failed state with no control over its
borders.
Chris Bellomy
: On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
The USMC can win any battle, but a war is more than a sum of
battles, more than a military operation. The failure of modern
American conservatives to recognize the limits of military
power, even after Vietnam, even after the USSR bogged down
in Afghanistan, even now after Iraq, is -- to put it lightly --
troubling.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
Bobby Knight
<pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>Bobby Knight <bkn...@conramp.net> wrote:
>: On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
>:>Do you really think a battle exists that the United States Marine Corps
>:>could not win?
>:
>: That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
>: Afghanistan and Iraq with Marine battalions and just sweep all of the
>: bad guys away? What a dolt!
>
>The USMC can win any battle, but a war is more than a sum of
>battles, more than a military operation. The failure of modern
>American conservatives to recognize the limits of military
>power, even after Vietnam, even after the USSR bogged down
>in Afghanistan, even now after Iraq, is -- to put it lightly --
>troubling.
No, Chris. The USMC is a great fighting machine, but tey are
outmanned, supply lines are cut, and shit happens, they CAN lose a
battle. It's idiocy to make a statement that there is no way that
they can't lose a battle.
Howard Brazee
>So, we invaded Iraq because SH might someday have developed a nuclear
>weapon, and then might have sold it to AQ, even though he hated them,
>and AQ would then have used that weapon against the US. And we're
>better off with Iraq as a failed state with no control over its
>borders.
Are you calling the president a liar?
Head Shot
> Are you calling the president a liar?
The present President of the United States is most certainly a LIAR. *
* Might actually be a mandatory requirement for the job
Chris Bellomy
: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:47:38 GMT, Chris Bellomy
Let me make sure I understand, I think you typoed some:
"The USMC is a great fighting machine, but if they are outmanned,
supply lines are cut, and shit happens, they CAN lose a battle."
That's true.
I'll put it this way: put a battalion of Marines against a
similar sized force of any other nation in the world, on
relatively equal logistical footing regarding supply lines,
terrain, etc., and the Marines will almost always win.
But even that capability has limits. And even if it didn't --
even if the Marines could always be counted on to win any battle
anywhere regardless of any externalities -- that wouldn't be
enough to win ever war. War requires a political solution to be
resolved, and Marines do not, cannot, engineer political solutions.
Bobby Knight
<pu...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
Absolutley no argument. But one can't expect that in every case.
>
>But even that capability has limits. And even if it didn't --
>even if the Marines could always be counted on to win any battle
>anywhere regardless of any externalities -- that wouldn't be
>enough to win ever war. War requires a political solution to be
>resolved, and Marines do not, cannot, engineer political solutions.
Agreed here too.
I just can't abide a statement like "Do you really think a battle
exists that the United States Marine Corps could not win?"
Of course, under certain conditions. Broad statements are almost
always untrue.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>Saddam Hussein wasn't going
>to give his weapons to Al Qaeda nor any other religious group.
>
>If Iraq was a nuclear threat before we invaded - who has those weapons
>now.
Saddam was a potential threat in the future because he wanted to
develop nuclear weapons. Saddam made it easy to get rid of him by not
giving full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors and the US
rightly took the chance.
If Saddam, eventually succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, he
might, or might not, have given them to terrorists. However, it would
be gross negligence for the US to allow him to be in a position to
make that decision. Even if he didn't, there's no way the US should
allow Saddam to have nuclear weapons anyhow.
The same is true for Iran.
Jack Hollis
>So, we invaded Iraq because SH might someday have developed a nuclear
>weapon, and then might have sold it to AQ, even though he hated them,
>and AQ would then have used that weapon against the US. And we're
>better off with Iraq as a failed state with no control over its
>borders.
Yes.