Current Count - As Of 10/18/05
Tom Watson
Since "Mission Accomplished" 1824.
Iraqi Deaths (est.) 28,000.
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Mike in Arkansas
enlist. Really couldn't understand that in light of how important
daddy thinks the Iraq war is. Thought they would have wanted to help
defend democracy. Of course, I might have been wrong.
Joseph Connors
--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!
Tom Watson
<joeco...@charter.net> wrote:
>What does all this crap have to do with woodworking?
I no longer give a fuck about your woodworking.
BobS
Todd Fatheree
news:2cmdl1d3qh06ibt2l...@4ax.com...
> American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
> Since "Mission Accomplished" 1824.
> Iraqi Deaths (est.) 28,000.
Thanks, Tom. That is some really useful information. Keep it up.
todd
Tom Watson
>hey troll...your mother is calling you - she say's you're an asshole......
>
And you served - when?
DouginUtah
Have you ever Googled 'peak oil'? Maybe that would take your mind off the
war. Okay, they're related, but peak oil is going to have a greater effect
on you.
---
What does this have to do with woodworking? Just this. In five to ten years
hobby woodworking will not be how you spend your spare time. Surviving will
be.
-Doug
(Yes, I'm a Doomer.)
===========================
"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
news:4qodl1de8dn2btcnc...@4ax.com...
Tom Watson
<she...@xxxmission.com> wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Have you ever Googled 'peak oil'? Maybe that would take your mind off the
>war. Okay, they're related, but peak oil is going to have a greater effect
>on you.
I've Googled, "Pissants From Mars", and gotten more or less the same
energy.
The thrust of the thread is the unreasoning involvement of American
children in a conflict that is without meaning, or a legitimate hope
of resolution.
The demographics of this group show that most are of an age as to
appreciate the analogy to the undeclared war in southeast Asia.
There is a subset of individuals who are old enough to take that back
to Korea.
There may even be a few who could hearken back to the Second World
War.
A serious enquiry would lead one ultimately to the question of "Why".
Why would we spend our children in such a way?
Do not give your children easily to the politicians.
They will spend them without thought. or remorse.
But, you will be bereft.
>---
>What does this have to do with woodworking? Just this. In five to ten years
>hobby woodworking will not be how you spend your spare time. Surviving will
>be.
OK. But maybe not.
>
>-Doug
>(Yes, I'm a Doomer.)
I prefer the original DOS version.
YMMV.
>
>===========================
>"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
>news:4qodl1de8dn2btcnc...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:07:35 -0700, Joseph Connors
>> <joeco...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>What does all this crap have to do with woodworking?
>> I no longer give a fuck about your woodworking.
>> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>
John
John
John
bri...@all.costs
wrote:
so the was was a success, eh?
Edwin Pawlowski
> children in a conflict that is without meaning, or a legitimate hope
> of resolution.
Is this the same Tom Watson that once complained about the OT noise here?
Even stomped of for a while IIRC.
Doug Miller
That particular Tom Watson complained -- a lot -- about political posts, and
singled out several posters by name as the objects of his ire. But only the
conservatives. Evidently, off-topic political postings by leftists don't
bother him.
So I'm guessing it's the same one.
Maybe he'll stomp off again.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mark & Juanita
>On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:09:12 GMT, "BobS" <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>hey troll...your mother is calling you - she say's you're an asshole......
>>
>
>
>And you served - when?
>
... and if you had served troll, you would not be attempting to negate the
sacrifices of your fellow soldiers by attempting to assure that we cut and
run allowing an insurgent victory.
>
>Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
bri...@all.costs
<nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Tom Watson <no...@erehwon.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:09:12 GMT, "BobS" <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>hey troll...your mother is calling you - she say's you're an asshole......
>>>
>>
>>
>>And you served - when?
>>
>
>... and if you had served troll, you would not be attempting to negate the
>sacrifices of your fellow soldiers by attempting to assure that we cut and
>run allowing an insurgent victory.
yeah, just keep feeding kids into this pointless war. that'll really
honor the sacrifices of the previous cannon fodder.
Joseph Connors
--
Charlie Self
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:10:53 -0400, Tom Watson <no...@erehwon.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:09:12 GMT, "BobS" <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>hey troll...your mother is calling you - she say's you're an asshole......
> >>
> >
> >
> >And you served - when?
> >
>
> ... and if you had served troll, you would not be attempting to negate the
> sacrifices of your fellow soldiers by attempting to assure that we cut and
> run allowing an insurgent victory.
>
Utter bullshit.
Charlie Self
former Cpl. USMC
Pat Barber
Larry Blanchard
> American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
> Since "Mission Accomplished" 1824.
> Iraqi Deaths (est.) 28,000.
>
Aw, c'mon, Tom. It's not bad enough that the neo-cons get all stirred
up about ID, now you have to enrage them by suggesting that their
born-again leader may have made a mistake :-).
And did you see the current news report that says Bush knew in 2003 that
Rowe outed the CIA agent?
ba...@sme-online.com
keep warfare going, and call any who object traitors.
How about a "truth in warmongering" law to parallel "truth in lending"?
Full and honest disclosure up front, cooling-off period, whatever.
J
BobS
"BobS" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Y6C5f.83405$7b6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Scott_Cramer
> American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
At the current pace, by the end of his presidency George W. Bush will have
been responsible for far more American deaths than the 9/11 hijackers.
For a guy who claims to do a lot of praying, you have to wonder just
exactly what God is trying to tell him, dontcha?
Scott
ama...@no.com
<joeco...@charter.net> wrote:
>What does all this crap have to do with woodworking?
>
Why it has everything to do with woodworking, Their building pine
boxes by thousands in Iraq
Ed
USMC
I fought for the right to question authority
Todd Fatheree
news:1129852098.ea51dc0a0ce6adc524c793a223b42739@teranews...
> On 19 Oct 2005, Tom Watson noted:
>
> > American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
>
> At the current pace, by the end of his presidency George W. Bush will have
> been responsible for far more American deaths than the 9/11 hijackers.
Liberals can only hope.
> For a guy who claims to do a lot of praying, you have to wonder just
> exactly what God is trying to tell him, dontcha?
>
> Scott
Just in case we want to inject some actual facts into this thread, here's
another count.
US Senators authorizing war against Iraq: 77 (even Kerry voted for it,
before he voted against it)
US Senators voting against: 23
todd
Han
news:Nv-dnS4QWu0...@comcast.com:
> Just in case we want to inject some actual facts into this thread,
> here's another count.
>
> US Senators authorizing war against Iraq: 77 (even Kerry voted for
> it, before he voted against it)
> US Senators voting against: 23
>
> todd
>
My factoid:
I would have voted for the authority to go to war. The implicit
condition is that the reasons for going to war do indeed exist. In
addition, I had some trepidations before Bush went to war:
There was no plan to organize civil authority (this is very, very bad)
after liberating Iraq from Hussain (a good thing). Why not? No one was
able to get the exiled Kurd parties (certainly more than 1), and the
exiled shiites and sunnis to agree on anything.
There was no agreement with Turkey on the status of "Kurdistan". The
Turks would have liked to annex all and suppress everything Kurdish, an
obvious nono from the point of view of most people. Not enough
diplomacy to get at least a bit closer to an agreement. Result, there
was no Northern front, allowing the "rebels" to organize much quicker
and better.
There was no exit strategy, and there still isn't.
What should have been done:
Isolate Iraq better. The oil for food program was a joke. Support
indiginous opposition, covert ops to get rid of Hussain and his
lieutenants.
Really make Afghanistan into a selfsufficient democratic (sort of) state
with lots of foreign aid to help the people there out of the devastation
of their civil wars. Contain (if not eradicate) their opium poppies.
Control the power of the war lords. Make Afghanistan an example.
This has nothing to do with wood. Bush isn't substantial enough.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Marc
Marc
He is a needle dicked, bugger eating, bed wetter who has a webtv
Ignore his psychotic ravings
Schuster
Listen, punk, soldiers die. They know that when they sign on.
You don't know jack except to post some numbers. You've never served. If you
had ever served, you would know to post names, not numbers, punk.
Take your political bent and shove it up your candy ass.
Your political bullshit is nauseating to those that have served, idiot.
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
news:2cmdl1d3qh06ibt2l...@4ax.com...
> American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
> Since "Mission Accomplished" 1824.
> Iraqi Deaths (est.) 28,000.
>
>
>
>
>
Charlie Self
Schuster wrote:
> Another little pissant crying about dead soldiers.
>
> Listen, punk, soldiers die. They know that when they sign on.
>
> You don't know jack except to post some numbers. You've never served. If you
> had ever served, you would know to post names, not numbers, punk.
>
> Take your political bent and shove it up your candy ass.
>
> Your political bullshit is nauseating to those that have served, idiot.
>
> C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
> 1981-1990
> The Best There Is
> Sua Sponte
> "Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
> news:2cmdl1d3qh06ibt2l...@4ax.com...
> > American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
> > Since "Mission Accomplished" 1824.
> > Iraqi Deaths (est.) 28,000.
> >
Your asininity is nauseating to others who have served, asshole.
Sure, soliders die. It is much better if those who die do it for
reasons other than those dreamed up by a lying politician who takes the
country to war on false premises, and then tries to dream up new
reasons almost daily.
Schuster
politician that takes the country to war for any premise.
Your political hatred blinds you.
Those of you that are so politically bent against the current administration
forget, oh so quickly, the administrations of the past.
My friends and comrades die today to stabilize an area of the world. They
know what they are risking. They agree with it. You ought to talk with them.
I do.
You don't agree, little punk. Fucking bummer. Go elect some candy ass that
wants to run from world events and order. Good luck. Your problem is that
most of America understands. You don't.
Pussy!
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129915113....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
no(SPAM)vasys
> Fucking idiot. Name me one soldier who hasn't died because of some
> politician that takes the country to war for any premise.
>
I'd say probably the one's that came home alive.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
no-SPA...@adelphia.net
(Remove -SPAM- to send email)
Dave Hinz
> Another little pissant crying about dead soldiers.
He's just a troll, and unworthy of your time and effort to respond.
Just killfile it and move on.
Schuster
politics of the reasons.
It's just death. Ugly. Bloody. Strange sounds coming from your bud next to
you.
You make me puke. You've never been there, you little panty licker. STFU!!
Take your political bent and shove it up your undoctrinated ass!
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129915113....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
bri...@all.costs
you misunderstand.
the purpose of war is to kill people. this war has succeeded about
30,000 times so far.
John Emmons
Panama, Grenada?
John E.
"Schuster" <gs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gN-dncDo-LG...@comcast.com...
fredf...@spamcop.net
A Declaration of War compels the President to go to war. An
authorizaion under the war powers act permits him to wage
or not, at his discretion and unless Congress intervenes again.
Three arguments against Bush:
1) He presented false and misleeding information (remember the
forged Niger-Iraq correspondence?) to obtain passage of
the War Powers resolution IRT Iraq.
2) He abused the discretion by proceeding with the invasion
despite the best ineligence showing that Iraq had not
WMD stockpiles or programs.
3) He has violated Treaty obligations and US law in his conduct
as commander in Chief. The Bybee memo, in particular contradicts
both.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
Han wrote:
>
> ...
>
> There was no plan to organize civil authority (this is very, very bad)
> after liberating Iraq from Hussain (a good thing). Why not?
> There was no exit strategy, and there still isn't.
>
Do you have any real evidence that the post-invasion
developements are substantialy different from what the
administration expected?
Do you really think an exit strategy was a concern, given
that Bush will be ineligible to the Presidency after January,
2009?
Do you not think he anticipated a major military
presence in Iraq for the remainder of his Presidency?
Do you think he ares anymore about what happens in Iraq
after he leaves office than his father did about Somalia?
If his successor pulls out of a rapidly deteriorating
situation and Iraq lapses into civil war it will be
his successor who gets blamed, GWB will still be the
liberator of Iraq.
I submit it was people who thought Bush was expecting less
bloodshed or a more rapid transition to a peaceful and
prosperous Iraq who were naive, not the administration.
--
FF
Charlie Self
Damn. Now there's a way for you to convince others that your point of
view is right.
Piss up a rope, twit.
Schuster
"John Emmons" <joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:D4b6f.164643$qY1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Schuster
Unlike you and your lttle diatribe, I was there. I was ordered there by my
Commander in Chief. People died. It was ugly. The world is a better place
because we were there. Several times.
You post some fucking numbers that irritate you.
Piss off you little candy ass.
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129924041.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Schuster wrote:
>> Ever watched a soldier die? Didn't think so. I doesn't matter at all the
>> politics of the reasons.
>>
>> It's just death. Ugly. Bloody. Strange sounds coming from your bud next
>> to
>> you.
>>
>> You make me puke. You've never been there, you little panty licker.
>> STFU!!
>>
>> Take your political bent and shove it up your undoctrinated ass!
>>
>> >>
>>
Schuster
Soldiers don't die for any political reason. They die because they got hit.
Idiot.
Please don't reduce the effort into some political bullshit of yours. The
soldiers went into battle because the Congress authorized them to. They
thought it proper. The Commander In Chief ordered them to. He thought it
worthy. The CO told them to.
I fought the best I could, even when they told me the parameters had changed
and I was probably going to die before I hit the ground.
I hereby stand and piss on you, you non-serving little penis!
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129915113....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
Dave Hall
I don't really understand the "exit strategy" comments. You exit when
everything is done. You only talk about exit strategy when you are
losing. What was the exit strategy in WWII or WWI or the Spanish
American War or the Civil War or 1812 or the Revolution, etc. The only
wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea and Vietnam
or we gave away - Gulf I. Winning is an acceptable "exit strategy"
losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two options.
Dave Hall
Morris Dovey
said:
| the purpose of war is to kill people. this war has succeeded about
| 30,000 times so far.
I know you know better - but young readers may not.
The purpose of war is to impose one's political will on others by
force - usually (but not necessarily) following failure to convince
the other side through diplomacy or negotiation.
The purpose of violence in combat is to remove the opponents' will and
capacity to continue the fight before one has expended one's own
resources - by inflicting casualties (which does not mean the same
thing as causing death) and by destroying the opponents' military
resources.
Killing is sometimes necessary; but it's undesirable. Combat
eventually ceases; and unnecessary killing produces long-term
reactions that make peace difficult and expensive to achieve. Consider
the former Yugoslav Republic; and how long the healing there will take
(and why).
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Schuster
They understood the mission.
U?
You never served, Tom.
Shut up!
You don't speak for us.
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"Tom Watson" <no...@erehwon.com> wrote in message
news:2cmdl1d3qh06ibt2l...@4ax.com...
> American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
> Since "Mission Accomplished" 1824.
> Iraqi Deaths (est.) 28,000.
>
>
>
>
>
David
Bleeding hearts don't understand much of anything from a purely
practical point of view. they are too busy with their feelings to think
logically. What burns my butt is that the pacifists and their families
are protected by the soldiers who's service protects all of their
countrymen; not just those who agree with the mission. Pacifists should
be made to stand in harm's way when the terrorists come back to the USA
for more bloodshed. Or let them try to talk some sense into those blood
thirsty bastards. Let's see how far they get by discussing their
"feelings".
As always, patriotic young men (and women) will continue to serve our
common good, even in the face of ridicule by the vocal whiners. My
respect remains focused on those who serve, rather than those that bitch.
Dave
Schuster
It sucks to watch those who give the last breath.
It's satisfying to see a government change.
I've been with both.
God Bless America.
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"David" <Da...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:nrOdnQmpxPp...@comcast.com...
Larry Blanchard
> Han wrote:
>
> Do you not think he anticipated a major military
> presence in Iraq for the remainder of his Presidency?
> Do you think he ares anymore about what happens in Iraq
> after he leaves office than his father did about Somalia?
> If his successor pulls out of a rapidly deteriorating
> situation and Iraq lapses into civil war it will be
> his successor who gets blamed, GWB will still be the
> liberator of Iraq.
>
That's a very good point, and one I'd not considered. I did assume that
(at least) one of the reasons for Iraq was our inability to catch OBL or
Omar, the reasons we went into Afghanistan in the first place - Iraq
would divert attention from Afghanistan - hoo,boy has it ever :-).
Larry Blanchard
> I don't really understand the "exit strategy" comments. You exit when
> everything is done. You only talk about exit strategy when you are
> losing. What was the exit strategy in WWII or WWI or the Spanish
> American War or the Civil War or 1812 or the Revolution, etc. The
> only wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea and
> Vietnam or we gave away - Gulf I. Winning is an acceptable "exit
> strategy" losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two
> options.
>
Struggling while immersed in quicksand isn't good strategy either - lay
on your back and float to the edge is better.
And you can't compare pre-20th century war with modern warfare.
We quit in Korea because of a very large opponent to the north - China.
Once they got in there was no way we could "win" - nobody has ever
defeated China. Yes, the Japanese occupied some cities, but they never
controlled most of the land mass.
Vietnam and Iraq are similar - both are wars we never should have gotten
in in the first place. If you think otherwise please tell me what vital
American interests were at risk if we didn't invade Iraq.
Larry Blanchard
> boxes by thousands in Iraq
>
Beautiful! That's one of the best comebacks I've seen on Usenet.
Joseph Connors
--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
Those with the gold, make the rules!
Larry Blanchard
> I hereby stand and piss on you, you non-serving little penis!
>
OK, you've proven you're a big bad jock with a good command of obscenities.
Now either learn how to disagree with others over an issue without
sounding like a retarded redneck or go away.
fredf...@spamcop.net
> WWII
Unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany followed by the
formation of a stable and peaceful non-militarized democratic
government. An essential feature was the guarantee of US
protection against foreign (e.g. Soviet) agggression, an
agreement still in effect so that in a very real sense, we
have not yet exited. The Bush administration would have us
believe that this is their strategy in Iraq, but the reality
is addressed below.
> WWI
Forcing Germany to accept the terms that became the Armistice
agreement.
> Spanish American War
Surrender to the US, of the islands invaded by the US.
Actually exitting from the theater took many years
and transition to self government of those islands.
Note, we still have not exited from Puerto Rico,
and are stil paying the personal income tax passed to
pay for that war.
> or the Civil War
Unconditional Surrender followed by Reconstruction.
> 1812 or the
The intial exit strategy was dependant on the successful
invasion and annexation of Canada. Having lost that
campaign the exit strategy became to survive as a nation
until Great Britain got tired of burning our cities.
On the plus side, we did get to keep Detroit (the only
strategically significant American land victory in the
war) and an end to impressment in exchange for our promise
to not invade Canada again. Plus we got to kill a lot of
lobsterbacks defending New Orleans. Too bad that didn't
happen three months earlier, we could have had two
strategically important victories.
> Revolution,
Forcing Great Britain to recognise the United States of America
as an Independent Nation. Had a do over thirty years later.
> etc. The only
> wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea
We have not exitted from Korea, nor lost the war The current
exit strategy diplomatic, to convince North Korea to recognize
the defacto border, agree to not invade again, and demilitarize.
Reunification would be even better, but we don't have to
be there for that to happen.
> and Vietnam
The exit strategy for Vietnam as to turn the job of fighting
the war over to the Army of South Vietnam, so they could
defend themsleves and we would no longer be needed. Sound
familiar? One disadvantage in Vietnam was that, unlike
Iraq, the Viet Cong and ANV were certain to keep fighting
after we left.
> or we gave away- Gulf I.
The exit strategy for the Iraqi-Kuwaiti war, was to drive the
Iraqi forces out for Kuwait and, by threatening annihilation of
the remaining forces force Saddam Husein to agree to not
threaten Kuwait again. We got more out of it
> Winning is an acceptable "exit strategy"
> losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two options.
>
How will we know if we win in Iraq? The insurgency will not
stop so long as foreign troops are on Iraqi soil. If we require
an end to the insurgency in order to win, we must exit Iraq
in order to win. It is by no means certain that the Iraqis
will not fight among themselves in the absence of foreign
troops but it is ceratin that some Iraqis will fight so
long as some Foreign troops are there.
But like I said, Bush's exit strategy is to leave office at
the end of his second term. I am not so naive as to suppose
he gives a rat's ass how long US troops stay in Iraq after
it becomes someone else's problem.
--
FF
Schuster
You've never served either.
Kind of bothers the little thing, eh Larry?
"Larry Blanchard" <lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:43596478$0$41151$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Charlie Self
It's an odd thing, maybe a difference in military services, but
throughout Parris Island and ITR at LeJeune, the emphasis was on us
doing the killing and the enemy doing the dying. You went in expecting
to die and didn't. You wsere lucky. You're lucky you're able to believe
that what was done there changed the world for the better.
It didn't, any more than Bush's contretemps, costing lives and money at
a nasty rate, will change the Middle East for the better. In fact, it
has destablized a already notoriously unstable area and will continue
to make things worse, which is the reason a great many of us feel that
the American presence there should be withdrawn as soon as feasible.
But if all you're worried about is the size of my penis...you DO have a
problem.
Charlie Self
You know, this may come as a surprise to you, but military service,
with or without combat, is not a requirement for one to hold and
express an opinion on the Iraq war. Nor is there anything essential in
your words that tends to make one believe that you actually served. I
know a bunch of redneck former Marines who sound pretty much like you,
and, of course, they did serve, some in combat, some not. That doesn't
make their opinion more valid than that of my wife, who didn't serve.
In fact, their opinions may be more valid than those of Dick Cheney,
who had "better things to do" than serve. Or of George W. Bush, who was
too busy to show up for the last year of his laughable military
service. Let's see. John Kerry served, and in combat, but he was
branded a coward by the draft dodger you guys elected, the man who
couldn't find his way to an ANG base to report, but who is now leading
this country.
You, sir, are a fool.
Scott Cramer
>> > American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
>>
>> At the current pace, by the end of his presidency George W. Bush will
>> have been responsible for far more American deaths than the 9/11
>> hijackers.
>
> Just in case we want to inject some actual facts into this thread,
> here's another count.
>
> US Senators authorizing war against Iraq: 77 (even Kerry voted for
> it, before he voted against it)
> US Senators voting against: 23
We're talking *current* events here, Todd.
Schuster
63.5%.
Progress............Pussy!
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129935949.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
joey
"Schuster" <gs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m5ednSLtWrr...@comcast.com...
Schuster
I already did your wife. You can have her, she's fat and doesn't lubricate
well. Fix it.
John Kerry served....himself.
Ask him about helping his bud dying next to him. He can't remember.
Ask him about a cut on his finger......he'll give you hours......
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129936353.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Schuster
Feelings get you killed in a conflict. I've been in a few firefights.
"lil Tommy ain't."
We protect pacifists...It's what we do.
Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my
chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor and
high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment.
Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at
the cutting edge of battle by land, sea or air, I accept the fact that as a
Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than
any other soldier.
Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert,
physically strong and morally straight; I will shoulder more than my share
of the task whatever it may be, one hundred percent and then some.
Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and
well-trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress
and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.
Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on
the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my
might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade
to fall into the hands of the enemy, and under no circumstances will I ever
embarrass my country.
Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the
Ranger objective and complete the mission, though I be the lone survivor.
Rangers Lead The Way.
C Co, 2d Bn, 75th Inf.
1981-1990
The Best There Is
Sua Sponte
"David" <Da...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:nrOdnQmpxPp...@comcast.com...
fredf...@spamcop.net
Schuster wrote:
> Never had an interest in the Marines. Sua Sponte.
>
>
I thought his wife was in a coma...
--
FF
CW
"Mark & Juanita" <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote in message >
> ... and if you had served troll, you would not be attempting to negate the
> sacrifices of your fellow soldiers by attempting to assure that we cut and
> run allowing an insurgent victory.
>
Obviously the better idea is to stay there until hell freezes. We're not
getting out of there looking good, so we won't get out of their.
Schuster
2) There's millions of purple fingers.
3) You can't fix 1 or 2.
<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1129922665.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Todd Fatheree wrote:
>> "Scott_Cramer" <scott_...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> news:1129852098.ea51dc0a0ce6adc524c793a223b42739@teranews...
>> > On 19 Oct 2005, Tom Watson noted:
>> >
>> > > American Deaths In Iraq 1979.
>> >
>> > At the current pace, by the end of his presidency George W. Bush will
>> > have
>> > been responsible for far more American deaths than the 9/11 hijackers.
>>
>> Liberals can only hope.
>>
>> > For a guy who claims to do a lot of praying, you have to wonder just
>> > exactly what God is trying to tell him, dontcha?
>> >
>> > Scott
>>
>> Just in case we want to inject some actual facts into this thread, here's
>> another count.
>>
>> US Senators authorizing war against Iraq: 77 (even Kerry voted for it,
>> before he voted against it)
>> US Senators voting against: 23
>>
>
> A Declaration of War compels the President to go to war. An
> authorizaion under the war powers act permits him to wage
> or not, at his discretion and unless Congress intervenes again.
>
> Three arguments against Bush:
>
> 1) He presented false and misleeding information (remember the
> forged Niger-Iraq correspondence?) to obtain passage of
> the War Powers resolution IRT Iraq.
>
> 2) He abused the discretion by proceeding with the invasion
> despite the best ineligence showing that Iraq had not
> WMD stockpiles or programs.
>
> 3) He has violated Treaty obligations and US law in his conduct
> as commander in Chief. The Bybee memo, in particular contradicts
> both.
>
> --
>
> FF
>
CW
"Schuster" <gs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPudndEcw4N...@comcast.com...
Schuster
"CW" <s...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Gti6f.195$A63...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
James Rabbit
wrote:
And at least they are enough smart to make an about U turn after being
fool by the neo-cons!
>Just in case we want to inject some actual facts into this thread, here's
>another count.
>
>US Senators authorizing war against Iraq: 77 (even Kerry voted for it,
>before he voted against it)
>US Senators voting against: 23
>
>todd
Charlie Self
Last response to Schuster: yes, they voted in Iraq last week, and nolw
they're investigating the results in some areas. My belief, though, is
that the voting means nothing, that the country will break into three
pieces within six months after our troops leaves, ethnic Kurds and two
Islamic sects each forming a piece, and that battles will continue
between them, and between others. The eventual result may well be
another Saddass Insane, only worse.
I've known a few Rangers here and there, and none of them sounded like
you. Maybe I was just fortunate in my earlier experiences, eh?
Dave Hinz
> Schuster wrote:
>
>> I hereby stand and piss on you, you non-serving little penis!
>
> OK, you've proven you're a big bad jock with a good command of obscenities.
Far as I was concerned, he "proved" it with his second post.
> Now either learn how to disagree with others over an issue without
> sounding like a retarded redneck or go away.
He "went away" days ago on my newsreader...
John Emmons
You believed that stuff about being a Ranger?
John E.
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129971318....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Charlie Self
CC
people that were in the field under combat conditions
do not rattle on about their experiences. Matter of fact, they do not say
much about it at all. They generally keep it to themselves or if they say
much about it, usually in private with others that also experienced similar
conditions.
After returning home, the ones I ran into that rattled on about their "tour
of duty" and "how much of a bad ass they were"
the wanta' be's or the ones that spent their time in the "rear with the
gear"
Many who want to talk trash about how great they were, how many KIA's they
had to their credit, and what ever else they claim they
did, are pretty transparent to those who actually fought there. As if they
felt they had to impress others around them.
Personally, I wanted to get on with my life and was thankful that I had
survived.
Politically, I finally learned the real reasons we were there. And it wasn't
to save the poor peasants from their northern brothers
or to keep the Viet-Cong from coming over here and fighting in the streets
of the USA
Do you notice how many times the US has gotten in the middle of civil wars
in other countries? It's all about the money
Corporal USMC
'66-68 Forward Observer team
5th. MAR DIV
3rd. MAR DIV
CC
,
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129998563.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
fredf...@spamcop.net
Schuster wrote:
> 1) They voted last weekend.
>
> 2) There's millions of purple fingers.
>
> 3) You can't fix 1 or 2.
>
Neither 1) nor 2) above needs to be fixed.
>
> <fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:1129922665.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > A Declaration of War compels the President to go to war. An
> > authorizaion under the war powers act permits him to wage
> > or not, at his discretion and unless Congress intervenes again.
> >
> > Three arguments against Bush:
> >
> > 1) He presented false and misleeding information (remember the
> > forged Niger-Iraq correspondence?) to obtain passage of
> > the War Powers resolution IRT Iraq.
> >
> > 2) He abused the discretion by proceeding with the invasion
> > despite the best ineligence showing that Iraq had not
> > WMD stockpiles or programs.
> >
> > 3) He has violated Treaty obligations and US law in his conduct
> > as commander in Chief. The Bybee memo, in particular contradicts
> > both.
> >
3) above can be fixed.
All three may be mitigated by legal and political action.
--
FF
fredf...@spamcop.net
They've taken Bush's advice.
--
FF
"Fool me once, shame on you -- and we won;t be fooled again!"
-- George W. Bush
Henry St.Pierre
@news20.forteinc.com:
Is the opposite of a 'neo-con' a 'paleo-lib'?
Just curious.
Hank
Schuster
I'm comfortable in my skin...
U?
That's right, you're just another blowhard that hasn't ever done anything
except flap his lips.....
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129998563.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Charlie Self
USMC, in 1961, and get the hell back into civilian life in '62. I
almost went back into the reserves in '66 when I ran out of money for
college, but...on my way to the armory to get sworn back in, I picked
up a newspaper and found out they had called you guys up. I found a
night job guarding a felt factory instead.
I have several buddies who did the 'Nam tour around the time you were
there, most of them USMC, but several Army as well. None sound like
Schuster, if that's his real name (he's using a hotmail address, so
probably not). Most are grateful to be alive and in one piece,
physically if not always emotionally, but, as another USMC Corporal
said, sometimes he misses the feeling of total awareness, of being
completely alive. He doesn't miss it enough to want to do the same
things over again (especially as he approaches his 59th birthday), but
it makes a formidable nostalgic feeling. We are good enough friends
that I could pry his stories out of him, but he's never really
volunteered a whole lot, so I just let it be. My first wife was one who
liked to pick at scabs. I prefer to leave them be, let them heal as
much as possible.
WWII vets and Korean War combat vets are the same way, IME. I've got
one uncle, who was with an Army construction battalion throughout much
of the South Pacific campaigning who at 84 is now fighting the Japs all
over again.
Even after 60+ years, it can chew on participants.
Wars must be selected with somewhat more appreciation for the waste of
lives, including the maimed and psychologically wounded, that results.
They aren't, of course. Bush and Cheney are a pair, both aimed at the
big bucks, and only one of them mentally competent--and it ain't Bush.
Someone in government--Senate?--recently called him our Manchurian
Candidate, and I believe they're very close to correct. Someone is
pulling his strings, as he's not bright enough to walk and chew gum at
the same time...especially in his high heeled boots.
Semper fi,
Charlie Self
Corporal, USMC
HMR (L) 161
(I'm told my old outfit got chewed up pretty good in 'Nam--I know it no
longer exists)
Han
as I was born in the fall of 1944 in Nazi-ocupied Holland, and grew up just
north and west of the area where the battle for the Rhine bridges was
fought just prior to my birth. I walked many times in the Airborne hikes
performed yearly in and around Oosterbeek
<http://www.airbornewandeltocht.nl/uk/index.html>.
I now work in a research lab in the VA system. I'm not involved with
direct care for veterans, but my boss was at a "study section" type meeting
where the VA Research administrators were deciding on research proposals to
study "gulf war syndrome". See <http://www.va.gov/pressrel/gwfs.htm>.
Apparently one of 6 soldiers is suffering from this, and it is being taken
very seriously. That plus the psychological effects of being there, which
I can't really fathom, is enough for me to say let's get out of Iraq ASAP,
if possible, honorably, preferably before the end of 2006.
I do recognize the rights of others to differ in opinion.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Charlie Self
To take care of your curiosity, the opposite of a neo-con is a true
Conservative.
Robatoy
"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.com> wrote:
> But if all you're worried about is the size of my penis...you DO have a
> problem.
Honest to fuck, man *walking with my hands open, up in the air*
backwards....N E V E R even thought about your penis, dude.
It'
s Robatoy...NOT Schuster..
Charlie Self
Did I mix attributions up? Sorry 'bout that. Schuster was the culprit,
worrying more about the little things than most people do about the big
things. It's a good thing we haven't got horses and mules in the mix
yet, or this big ol' Brahma a cowboy up the road has.
Dave Hall
<lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Dave Hall wrote:
>
>> I don't really understand the "exit strategy" comments. You exit when
>> everything is done. You only talk about exit strategy when you are
>> losing. What was the exit strategy in WWII or WWI or the Spanish
>> American War or the Civil War or 1812 or the Revolution, etc. The
>> only wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea and
>> Vietnam or we gave away - Gulf I. Winning is an acceptable "exit
>> strategy" losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two
>> options.
>>
>
>Struggling while immersed in quicksand isn't good strategy either - lay
>on your back and float to the edge is better.
>
>And you can't compare pre-20th century war with modern warfare.
>
>We quit in Korea because of a very large opponent to the north - China.
>
>Once they got in there was no way we could "win" - nobody has ever
>defeated China. Yes, the Japanese occupied some cities, but they never
>controlled most of the land mass.
>
>Vietnam and Iraq are similar - both are wars we never should have gotten
>in in the first place. If you think otherwise please tell me what vital
>American interests were at risk if we didn't invade Iraq.
While neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any of your statements or
assertions above, I must ask what any of it has to do with the
concept of having and/or announcing an "exit strategy" prior to
winning a war. The very fact of an "exit strategy" (other than "win
the war") assures that you have lost the war as it demonstartes to the
other side that you do not have the will to win. You might as well
just cut and run. This is true whether it is a "war to end all wars" a
"fight against tyranny and to protect the american way of life", a
"police action", or a war to protect us from "WMDs". In other words,
whether the war is "just" or they are "wars we never should have
gotten in in the first place" is immaterial. Once you are in it you
cannot demonstrate to the opponent that if they just hold out long
enough we will give up in disgrace like in Vietnam and Somolia. If you
do, they will.
Dave Hall
Dave Hall
>
>Dave Hall wrote:
>> On 21 Oct 2005 12:40:44 -0700, fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Han wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> There was no plan to organize civil authority (this is very, very bad)
>> >> after liberating Iraq from Hussain (a good thing). Why not?
>> >> ...
>> >> There was no exit strategy, and there still isn't.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Do you have any real evidence that the post-invasion
>> >developements are substantialy different from what the
>> >administration expected?
>> >
>> >Do you really think an exit strategy was a concern, given
>> >that Bush will be ineligible to the Presidency after January,
>> >2009?
>> >
>> >Do you not think he anticipated a major military
>> >presence in Iraq for the remainder of his Presidency?
>> >Do you think he ares anymore about what happens in Iraq
>> >after he leaves office than his father did about Somalia?
>> >If his successor pulls out of a rapidly deteriorating
>> >situation and Iraq lapses into civil war it will be
>> >his successor who gets blamed, GWB will still be the
>> >liberator of Iraq.
>> >
>> >I submit it was people who thought Bush was expecting less
>> >bloodshed or a more rapid transition to a peaceful and
>> >prosperous Iraq who were naive, not the administration.
>>
>> I don't really understand the "exit strategy" comments. You exit when
>> everything is done. You only talk about exit strategy when you are
>> losing. What was the exit strategy in
>
>
>> WWII
>
>Unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany followed by the
>formation of a stable and peaceful non-militarized democratic
>government. An essential feature was the guarantee of US
>protection against foreign (e.g. Soviet) agggression, an
>agreement still in effect so that in a very real sense, we
>have not yet exited. The Bush administration would have us
>believe that this is their strategy in Iraq, but the reality
>is addressed below.
>
That isn't an exit strategy, that is winning. The stuff you talk about
after "Unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany" had nothing to do
with the end of hostilities. It was our choice.
>> WWI
>
>Forcing Germany to accept the terms that became the Armistice
>agreement.
Again, not an exit strategy, it is called winning. We imposed stupid
conditions afterwards, but they were of our choosing and were not
reasons why Germany surrendered.
>> Spanish American War
>
>Surrender to the US, of the islands invaded by the US.
>Actually exitting from the theater took many years
>and transition to self government of those islands.
>Note, we still have not exited from Puerto Rico,
>and are stil paying the personal income tax passed to
>pay for that war.
Again, winning is not an exit strategy - it is winning.
>> or the Civil War
>
>Unconditional Surrender followed by Reconstruction.
Ditto again
>> 1812 or the
>
>The intial exit strategy was dependant on the successful
>invasion and annexation of Canada. Having lost that
>campaign the exit strategy became to survive as a nation
>until Great Britain got tired of burning our cities.
>On the plus side, we did get to keep Detroit (the only
>strategically significant American land victory in the
>war) and an end to impressment in exchange for our promise
>to not invade Canada again. Plus we got to kill a lot of
>lobsterbacks defending New Orleans. Too bad that didn't
>happen three months earlier, we could have had two
>strategically important victories.
OK, you may be right. Here I thought we won, but maybe we just fought
with someone who had an "exit strategy" so they left without winning
and with us still intact and stronger for the effort..
>> Revolution,
>
>Forcing Great Britain to recognise the United States of America
>as an Independent Nation. Had a do over thirty years later.
Sounds like winning again.
>> etc. The only
>> wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea
>
>We have not exitted from Korea, nor lost the war The current
>exit strategy diplomatic, to convince North Korea to recognize
>the defacto border, agree to not invade again, and demilitarize.
>Reunification would be even better, but we don't have to
>be there for that to happen.
If you don't call Korea a loss, I just don't think you understand the
concept of losing
>> and Vietnam
>
>The exit strategy for Vietnam as to turn the job of fighting
>the war over to the Army of South Vietnam, so they could
>defend themsleves and we would no longer be needed. Sound
>familiar? One disadvantage in Vietnam was that, unlike
>Iraq, the Viet Cong and ANV were certain to keep fighting
>after we left.
It was clear when Kissinger was "negotiating" in Paris that we were
trying ti find a way to surrender without looking too stupid too
quickly. North Vietnam agreed to stay above their border (after we
bombed the ll out of them to get that agreement) and we looked the
other way while they immediately broke that "agreement". We were
whipped in any reasonable sense of the word and we gave up and ran
away. Probably a good thing and probably something we should have done
years earlier - as soon as we knew that we were unwilling to actually
fight the war. Wars of attrition are senseless and we just might be
allowing the Iraq war to be just that. If you are unwilling to fight a
war as a war, then just give up and go home in defeat. Better to be
defeated early than lose thousands while being defeated slowly. Better
yet to win, but I don't think we have the will to do so.
Dave Hall
>> or we gave away- Gulf I.
>
>The exit strategy for the Iraqi-Kuwaiti war, was to drive the
>Iraqi forces out for Kuwait and, by threatening annihilation of
>the remaining forces force Saddam Husein to agree to not
>threaten Kuwait again. We got more out of it
Saddam didn't seem to understand that he had been beaten. Kinda like
you and Korea I think.
>> Winning is an acceptable "exit strategy"
>> losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two options.
>>
>
>How will we know if we win in Iraq? The insurgency will not
>stop so long as foreign troops are on Iraqi soil. If we require
>an end to the insurgency in order to win, we must exit Iraq
>in order to win. It is by no means certain that the Iraqis
>will not fight among themselves in the absence of foreign
>troops but it is ceratin that some Iraqis will fight so
>long as some Foreign troops are there.
>
>But like I said, Bush's exit strategy is to leave office at
>the end of his second term. I am not so naive as to suppose
>he gives a rat's ass how long US troops stay in Iraq after
>it becomes someone else's problem.
fredf...@spamcop.net
After winning, you can exit and go home.
But we did NOT go home after winning WWII we stayed for a number
of years. The Marshall Plan was the exit strategy for Europe
and MacArthur's plan (whatever it was called) for Japan was our
exit trategy there. The American occupation of Japan has ended,
e.g. we exited. We still have NATO troops in Germany, but not
a lot. Most have exited.
Perhaps you were not aware that US troops occuopied part of Germany
and Japan after WWII.
>
> >> WWI
> >
> >Forcing Germany to accept the terms that became the Armistice
> >agreement.
> Again, not an exit strategy, it is called winning. We imposed stupid
> conditions afterwards, but they were of our choosing and were not
> reasons why Germany surrendered.
Just how many US troops remained in Europe after WWI? I
daresay we exited after we won.
>
> >> Spanish American War
> >
> >Surrender to the US, of the islands invaded by the US.
> >Actually exitting from the theater took many years
> >and transition to self government of those islands.
> >Note, we still have not exited from Puerto Rico,
> >and are stil paying the personal income tax passed to
> >pay for that war.
>
> Again, winning is not an exit strategy - it is winning.
Again, after winning you can exit. But again, we didn't
exit. We occupied those islands until autonomous governments
were established. The establishment of those autonomous
(and independent of Spain) governments was the exit strategy.
Maybe you didn't know that we occupied Puerto Rico, Cuba, and
the Phillipines after the Spanish American War.
> >> or the Civil War
> >
> >Unconditional Surrender followed by Reconstruction.
>
> Ditto again
Again the formerly Confederate States were occupied by Federal
Troops after winning the Civil War. The exit strategy was
Reconstruction. Perhaps you never studied Reconstruction in
school and didn't think to google the term when you saw
me use it.
> >> 1812 or the
> >
> >The intial exit strategy was dependant on the successful
> >invasion and annexation of Canada. Having lost that
> >campaign the exit strategy became to survive as a nation
> >until Great Britain got tired of burning our cities.
> >On the plus side, we did get to keep Detroit (the only
> >strategically significant American land victory in the
> >war) and an end to impressment in exchange for our promise
> >to not invade Canada again. Plus we got to kill a lot of
> >lobsterbacks defending New Orleans. Too bad that didn't
> >happen three months earlier, we could have had two
> >strategically important victories.
> OK, you may be right. Here I thought we won, but maybe we just fought
> with someone who had an "exit strategy" so they left without winning
> and with us still intact and stronger for the effort..
Did we annex Canada, as planned?
>
> >> Revolution,
> >
> >Forcing Great Britain to recognise the United States of America
> >as an Independent Nation. Had a do over thirty years later.
>
> Sounds like winning again.
Yes. Of course there was no exit strategy for the US, we
were already home.
>
> >> etc. The only
> >> wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea
> >
> >We have not exited from Korea, nor lost the war The current
> >exit strategy diplomatic, to convince North Korea to recognize
> >the defacto border, agree to not invade again, and demilitarize.
> >Reunification would be even better, but we don't have to
> >be there for that to happen.
>
> If you don't call Korea a loss, I just don't think you understand the
> concept of losing
Where was the border before the war, where is it now? Looks like
a draw to me--unless you consider a successful defense to be
a victory.
We didn't exit the region either.
> Kinda like
> you and Korea I think.
Exactly how much of South Korea did the Communists capture and hold
to the present day?
>
>
> >> Winning is an acceptable "exit strategy"
Well isn't that interesting since you now deny that winning is
an "exit strategy".
Your exact words: "That isn't an exit strategy, that is winning."
the contrapositive of which is: "Winning is not an exit strategy."
> >> losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two options.
As far as that goes, we already won in Iraq, back in 2003.
> >
> >How will we know if we win in Iraq? The insurgency will not
> >stop so long as foreign troops are on Iraqi soil. If we require
> >an end to the insurgency in order to win, we must exit Iraq
> >in order to win. It is by no means certain that the Iraqis
> >will not fight among themselves in the absence of foreign
> >troops but it is ceratin that some Iraqis will fight so
> >long as some Foreign troops are there.
> >
> >But like I said, Bush's exit strategy is to leave office at
> >the end of his second term. I am not so naive as to suppose
> >he gives a rat's ass how long US troops stay in Iraq after
> >it becomes someone else's problem.
--
FF
bri...@all.costs
so if this had really been about WMDs, we'd have been out of there in
under a month once it was confirmed that in fact there were none. but
gwb knew that in the first place- it was a weak excuse, soon
abandoned.
it's not so much that there was no exit strategy- it's that the intent
was to occupy indefinitely- a concept that badly underestimated the
will of the iraqi people.
Mark & Juanita
>On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:29:14 -0400, Dave Hall <dhal...@cs.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:55:18 -0700, Larry Blanchard
>><lbl...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't really understand the "exit strategy" comments. You exit when
>>>> everything is done. You only talk about exit strategy when you are
>>>> losing. What was the exit strategy in WWII or WWI or the Spanish
>>>> American War or the Civil War or 1812 or the Revolution, etc. The
>>>> only wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea and
>>>> Vietnam or we gave away - Gulf I. Winning is an acceptable "exit
>>>> strategy" losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two
>>>> options.
>>>>
>>>
... snip
>
>
>so if this had really been about WMDs, we'd have been out of there in
>under a month once it was confirmed that in fact there were none. but
>gwb knew that in the first place- it was a weak excuse, soon
>abandoned.
>it's not so much that there was no exit strategy- it's that the intent
>was to occupy indefinitely- a concept that badly underestimated the
>will of the iraqi people.
To quote a phrase that seems to be all the rage these days, "That's BS".
The will of which Iraqi people? From the comments from the soldiers coming
back from Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi people appreciate what has been
done for them. As for the insurgency, despite what CNN and the NYT seem to
be saying, these aren't a bunch of freedom-loving natives looking to expel
the "oppressors"; just as in Vietnam, they are a bunch of statist despots
looking to gain control in order to again subjugate their fellow countrymen
once they get the coalition forces to leave. If you have any doubt of
that, look at who most of their victims are -- they care not a whit if they
kill innocent women or children, just so they can carry out an attack that
*might* hurt someone associated with the coalition forces. You'd think the
anti-war protesters would have learned from Vietnam, but apparently not.
If our intent was to become permanent occupiers, the US would be
demanding some sort of repayment for the occupation (say oil shipments) --
that's flat out not happening. It'd be pretty silly to become occupiers
simply for the sake of having a standing army in that country, wouldn't it?
I can just imagine the outcry from the left if the US had done as
suggested -- defeat the standing army, depose the dictator, search and not
find the WMD's that most of the world believed that he had, then just move
out and let anarchy and chaos descend on the country. Yeah, they'd have
really been praising that as the most "humane" approach.
Given how badly the pressed botched the reporting of the hurricanes in
NO, it's amazing to me that people still believe the spin that is put on
reports from those same news organizations in Iraq.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fly-by-Night CC
Mark & Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
> To quote a phrase that seems to be all the rage these days, "That's BS".
> The will of which Iraqi people? From the comments from the soldiers coming
> back from Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi people appreciate what has been
> done for them.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1598906,00.html>
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8985>
Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
by Sean Rayment
October 24, 2005
Daily Telegraph (London)
Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops
are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers
has revealed.
The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday
Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support
attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is
helping to improve security in their country.
It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western
feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody
occupation.
The nationwide survey also suggests that the coalition has lost the
battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which Tony Blair
and George W Bush believed was fundamental to creating a safe and secure
country.
<snip>
The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for
security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by
coalition forces. It reveals:
Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and
American troops are justified -- rising to 65 per cent in the
British-controlled Maysan province;
82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;
less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are
responsible for any improvement in security;
67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;
43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have
worsened;
72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.
The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the
US and British governments that the general well-being of the average
Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq.
<snip>
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
Larry Blanchard
> In article <9dttl1tcvocafvc4i...@4ax.com>, Mark &
> Juanita <nos...@hadenough.com> wrote:
>> From the comments from the
>> soldiers coming back from Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi people
>> appreciate what has been done for them.
>
>
> The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The
> Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens
> support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military
> involvement is helping to improve security in their country.
>
A survey of Iraqis by Iraqis trumps a soldiers comment :-).
O D
Mom said to get down off that soap box
before you fall down, and to come in the house right now, to get your
mouth washed out with soap.
Unnh
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:25:19 -0700, "Schuster" <gs...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I'm just another blowhard that hasn't ever done anything
>except flap his lips.....
--