| |
Main
Date: 17 Nov 2006 22:00:43
From: George Orwell
Subject: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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****
If Nixon wouldn't have decided to quit adn leave, or had the people tell
him that's enough, we'd still be over there. jackasses!
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:50:41
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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 ch 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
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 12:03:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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 ch 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.
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
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 11:19:53
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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 ch 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
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 10:49:43
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164747104.428320.7920@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > By the way, I've seen quite a bit in the press about voter fraud since
> > the election.
> >
>
> Source?
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.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:17:47
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164826183.273340.264290@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> the Moderator wrote:
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164747104.428320.7920@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way, I've seen quite a bit in the press about voter fraud since
> > > the election.
> > >
> >
> > Source?
>
>
> 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.
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.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:37:44
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:VbGdnS6XjJRHQfDYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164826183.273340.264290@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> the Moderator wrote:
>> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1164747104.428320.7920@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > By the way, I've seen quite a bit in the press about voter fraud
>> > > since
>> > > the election.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Source?
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
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.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 23:33:00
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:37:44 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
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.
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 10:22:59
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Dene wrote:
> 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
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 ch 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.
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 09:43:05
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 06:36:27
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Dene wrote:
> 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?
> >
> > 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 ginalized 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
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.
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 06:08:34
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." wrote:
> 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.
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 05:49:17
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1164046417.120043.279430@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.
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 16:06:37
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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?
>
> 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 ginalized 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
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:10:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2006 07:07:17 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's certainly possible. But chemical and biological weapons were
> >> not what the US was afraid of. Saddam's potential to develop nukes
> >> was the threat.
> >
> >
> >Horseshit. Bush and other senior admin. officials made MANY statements
> >about the "fact" that SH had chemical and bio weapons. They're all in
> >the public record. What do you think the UN inspectors were looking
> >for?
>
> I'm aware of that. However, Saddam's biological and chemical weapons,
> even if he still had them, were not a threat to the US. That's not
> what the US was worried about. It was the long term threat of nuclear
> weapons in Saddam's hands that was the real concern.
You are so fucking wrong, it's laughable.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:17:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 28 Nov 2006 16:06:37 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@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. 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
the US is ahead of the game.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:39:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Name one rogue state that has spent billions and billions of dollars
> > developing WMDs.
>
> South Africa spent close to a trillion developing their nukes; and then
> destroyed the whole program after the one successful test. And I bet
> Pakistan spent that much as well.
Those are not rogue states. They are, for better or worse, US allies.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 17:49:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Name one rogue state that has spent billions and billions of dollars
>>> developing WMDs.
>>
>> South Africa spent close to a trillion developing their nukes; and
>> then destroyed the whole program after the one successful test.
>> And I bet Pakistan spent that much as well.
>
> Those are not rogue states. They are, for better or worse, US allies.
Half of the countries we call allies are rogue states. Hell, our CIA
probably personally put in a few dozen governments in those rogue states we
call allies. The rest of those rogue states were empowered by our new
buddies, Russia.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 10:08:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2006 07:50:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's seems reasonable
> >to me that Assad, who was not a friend of SH, would not want all that
> >shit hauled into his country, making him subject to attack by the US.
> >What on Earth would he have to gain from that? Your argument is that he
> >may have had some reason, but you can't think of what it might be.
> >That's really compelling.
>
>
> Considering the fact that so many "rogue" states spend billions and
> billions of dollars developing WMDs, why wouldn't Syria be happy to
> get them for free?
>
Name one rogue state that has spent billions and billions of dollars
developing WMDs.
> Personally, I think the probability that Saddam moved his WMDs to
> Syria, or anywhere else, is small but not out of the question. If
> anything was moved, it would most likely be the materials from
> Saddam's nuclear program. In this case it wouldn't be weapons but
> equipment.
He didn't have a nuclear program. I really enjoy the way you change the
facts in order to fit your thesis.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 17:17:01
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> Name one rogue state that has spent billions and billions of dollars
> developing WMDs.
South Africa spent close to a trillion developing their nukes; and then
destroyed the whole program after the one successful test. And I bet
Pakistan spent that much as well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:51:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 10:08:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>He didn't have a nuclear program. I really enjoy the way you change the
>facts in order to fit your thesis.
Sorry John read this.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:47:24
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 10:08:53 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Considering the fact that so many "rogue" states spend billions and
>> billions of dollars developing WMDs, why wouldn't Syria be happy to
>> get them for free?
>>
>Name one rogue state that has spent billions and billions of dollars
>developing WMDs.
Iran, North Korea, Iraq and Libya.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:22:42
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164996533.567294.215440@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> Name one rogue state that has spent billions and billions of dollars
> developing WMDs.
>
Iraq, Iran, North Korea
Oh, sorry you only wanted one.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:52:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:22:42 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>Iraq, Iran, North Korea
>
>Oh, sorry you only wanted one.
Don't forget Kdaffy.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 06:54:08
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
In article <0bupm257qqo2nfjri91qo1ft3k297af5oi@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2006 16:06:37 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@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. 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
> the US is ahead of the game.
You're Larry, and I claim my $5.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:06:37
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 28 Nov 2006 16:06:37 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>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
ket capitalist economy and is doing quite well these days.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 02:20:08
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
In article <1164758797.895503.287260@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>
>
> 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?
> >
> > 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 ginalized 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
Nobody wins a war. Both sides lose but sometimes, one side loses more.
Our loses presently are 2881 dead and $7 billion a month spent. If that
isn't enough, bush is losing big and too stupid to know it.
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 12:51:44
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164220236.989689.311120@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > montmach@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
> > press about it? Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said
> > 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.
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.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 11:30:37
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164747104.428320.7920@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> By the way, I've seen quite a bit in the press about voter fraud since
> the election.
>
Source?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:33:11
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
In article <1164747104.428320.7920@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
> the Moderator wrote:
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164220236.989689.311120@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > montmach@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
> > > press about it? Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said
> > > 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.
>
>
> 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.
It has been documented that we were warned by intelligence agencies
outside the US and CIA analysts that we could expect to be "attacked by
terroists using planes as missles" prior to 911 and sat on it. Bush was
playing ranch that Aug and Rice "forgot about the memo" until questionned
by the press and then suddenly DID remember seeing something about it.
Results......WTC.
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 09:59:57
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Of course, the first lesson Bush had to learn about Viet Nam......was
how to spell it.
|
| |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 04:59:13
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> 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
on how to build a nuclear bomb."
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:24:53
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 28 Nov 2006 04:59:13 -0800, montmach@aol.com wrote:
>John B. wrote:
>
>> 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
>on how to build a nuclear bomb."
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.
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 10:58:03
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 03:47:45
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1164653883.136684.137320@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
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 22:46:38
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: 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.
That makes some sense.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 19:49:45
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> annika1980 <annika1980@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.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 13:57:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 27 Nov 2006 10:58:03 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
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.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:33:51
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:i9kmm2p2a8fr7vjsk80qscs7122e3b7ck3@4ax.com...
> On 27 Nov 2006 10:58:03 -0800, "annika1980"
> I suspect something by that name existed before we all heard of it.
> But whatever it was isn't what it is today.
Thank goodness.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 15:52:52
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
annika1980 wrote:
> 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.
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 07:27:42
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
montmach@aol.com wrote:
> "John B." asked:
>
> >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.
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!
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 05:04:11
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." asked:
>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.
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 20:39:23
From: moorehead
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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 ginalized during WW II.
mj
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 16:41:03
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
moorehead <moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com > 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?
:
: Then what do YOU call islamo-fascists, Chris?
What do you call tooth fairies?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:27:58
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 24-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@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.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:54:26
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 24-Nov-2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@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)?
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."
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 08:56:59
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
In article <1164343163.484041.91290@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"moorehead" <moorehead_johnson@hotmail.com > 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?
>
> 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 ginalized during WW II.
>
> mj
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
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 12:40:52
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:56:59 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@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 ket 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 ket 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.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:51:11
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 23 Nov 2006 20:39:23 -0800, "moorehead"
<moorehead_johnson@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 ginalized during WW II.
What do you think Vietnam would be like today had Nixon held the
course?
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:40:03
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0T3l20ulIrmuN34@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.
You mean it isnt the Republicans who are doing it openly.
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:30:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
montmach@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
press about it? Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said
anything about it? And who the hell is Stephen Hayes?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:27:19
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164220236.989689.311120@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> montmach@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
> press about it? Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said
> 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.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 16:13:04
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 22 Nov 2006 10:30:37 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>And who the hell is Stephen Hayes?
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.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 01:07:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 22 Nov 2006 10:30:37 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>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.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 14:18:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 22 Nov 2006 10:30:37 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>montmach@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
>press about it? Why hasn't GWB or anyone in his administration said
>anything about it? And who the hell is Stephen Hayes?
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."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 09:57:54
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
> 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."
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 06:12:02
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
montmach@aol.com wrote:
> >I suggest you read the Butler Report.
>
> 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 ch 2003 coalition invasion. I'm guessing
> those 8000 jihadis weren't training to fight annika's "strawmen," ya
> know what I mean?
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?
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 04:50:51
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
>I suggest you read the Butler Report.
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 ch 2003 coalition invasion. I'm guessing
those 8000 jihadis weren't training to fight annika's "strawmen," ya
know what I mean?
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 09:41:19
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
> It amuses me that modern Republicans still haven't figured out
> 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.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 09:39:10
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
> Who in the Democratic party supports the Islama-fascists?
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?
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 08:24:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164053512.963724.249790@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > 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.
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?
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 08:19:04
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
montmach@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)?
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.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 17:13:00
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: montmach@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)?
:
: 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.
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/
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 11:28:04
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3l20ulIrmuN34@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.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 19:27:26
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3l20ulIrmuN34@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.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 11:52:47
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:28:04 -0600, "the Moderator"
<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.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 07:44:50
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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)?
|
| | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 09:17:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Joe wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> >
> >>We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-elected
> >>and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in his
> >>place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was too
> >>long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah
> >>years see it differently.
> >
> >
> > I was around for part of The Shah's reign. I did not know he was not
> > beloved. I must admit I don't know much about him other than that he came
> > to America for cancer treatment and Ayatollah went from France back to Iran
> > and then poof - the hostage crisis. I was a teenager in the mid 70's.
>
> The two of you deserve to be talking to each other. John B. gets it all
> wrong and the troll is just... well, an idiot.
>
> Consider that Iran was ruled by the Shah as a constitutional Monarchy.
> Hey guys, can you say "Great Britain"? He was overthrown in the Islamic
> Fundy revolution in 1979. Er, what happened in '53?
You presume to know something about Iran and then asked what happened
in 1953? And you think that Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy?
You're quite the foreign policy scholar, aren't you? If you really want
to enlighten yourself about this, go onto wikipedia and do a search for
Mohammad Mossadegh. Then do one for Kermit Roosevelt.
>
> Khomeini should never have left Paris alive and any thinking person in
> the US knew that because what followed and what we are dealing with
> today was obvious to the most casual observer.
>
> Learn some history. Please!
> Joe
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 18:18:17
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>Head Shot wrote:
>>
>>>John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-elected
>>>>and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in his
>>>>place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was too
>>>>long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah
>>>>years see it differently.
Snip drivel
>>
>>The two of you deserve to be talking to each other. John B. gets it all
>>wrong and
SNIP
>>Consider that Iran was ruled by the Shah as a constitutional Monarchy.
>>Hey guys, can you say "Great Britain"? He was overthrown in the Islamic
>>Fundy revolution in 1979. Er, what happened in '53?
>
>
> You presume to know something about Iran and then asked what happened
> in 1953? And you think that Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy?
> You're quite the foreign policy scholar, aren't you? If you really want
> to enlighten yourself about this, go onto wikipedia and do a search for
> Mohammad Mossadegh. Then do one for Kermit Roosevelt.
First off, I was objecting to "We already fucked Iran once by
overthrowing a democratically-elected and beloved president in 1953 and
installing the scumbag Shah in his place." from your post. Mossadegh
was not president, but he was prime minister. The Shah was in power
long before and after 1953.
Secondly, Your own source supports to statement that the UK is a
Constitutional monarchy, as would any of the Brits who might be here.
Further, because of the duration of that Monarchy the reigning monarch
has considerable power of prerogative amongst the people. The same for
the Shah, except for the uneducated Islamic Fundies.
Thirdly, you attempt to reduce the complex nature of Iranian and middle
east politics to a simplistic two phrase statement.
Fourth, you implicitly affirm your position that any political hack
elected by the Least Common Denominator is a superior leader of people
to a non elected official. You realize that the founders and framers of
our own US constitution never envisioned the electorate to be one person
one vote of all living breathing citizens. The intent was to elect an
individual who would represent and hold foremost, the best interests of
the local and national population. That is far from representing the
current desires of the constituents.
>>Khomeini should never have left Paris alive and any thinking person in
>>the US knew that because what followed and what we are dealing with
>>today was obvious to the most casual observer.
By your failure to respond to the above I must assume that you agree
that allowing Khomeini to return to Iran ks the beginning of the
crisis that the west is facing.
With regard to your comment about SAVAK, from another post, are the
enlightened Mullahs of Iran doing any better?
>>Learn some history. Please!
>>Joe
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 09:12:40
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-elected
> > and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in his
> > place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was too
> > long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah
> > years see it differently.
>
> I was around for part of The Shah's reign. I did not know he was not
> beloved. I must admit I don't know much about him other than that he came
> to America for cancer treatment and Ayatollah went from France back to Iran
> and then poof - the hostage crisis. I was a teenager in the mid 70's.
He was liked by Iranians who were non-religious and attracted to a
Western lifestyle. He was despised by everybody else. It was illegal to
speak out against him or to oppose his regime. He was a vicious tyrant.
He had a secret police force called the Savak that was notorious for
unspeakable brutality against people who were thought to be enemies of
the regime.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 13:03:35
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> He was liked by Iranians who were non-religious and attracted to a
> Western lifestyle. He was despised by everybody else. It was illegal
> to speak out against him or to oppose his regime. He was a vicious
> tyrant. He had a secret police force called the Savak that was
> notorious for unspeakable brutality against people who were thought
> to be enemies of the regime.
Changing direction here:
He would have gotten along great with Bushtard; who has people in Cuba for
six years now that have yet to talk to a lawyer or a family member. And of
course USA has the NSA, FBI, C IA, NEST, and a host of other alphabet
clusters that operate outside of the law (see Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.).
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 17:49:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 3 Dec 2006 09:12:40 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>He was liked by Iranians who were non-religious and attracted to a
>Western lifestyle. He was despised by everybody else. It was illegal to
>speak out against him or to oppose his regime. He was a vicious tyrant.
>He had a secret police force called the Savak that was notorious for
>unspeakable brutality against people who were thought to be enemies of
>the regime.
My personal experience going to pilot training with both Saudis and
with Iranians was that the Iranians were far better. I attributed
that to the generation of modernization that Iran had. The Shaw may
have been responsible for that - as you say, at a cost though.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 18:29:48
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
multi wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 13:29:15 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >multi wrote:
> >> On 4 Dec 2006 10:18:23 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I passed the US Foreign Service exam
> >> >and was invited to join.
> >>
> >> I find that very difficult to believe. The US Foreign Service has an
> >> exam?
> >
> >Yes. Why is that hard to believe?
>
> It was a joke. But you have to admit, our diplomacy over the last
> five years has shown no signs of competence.
No argument there.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 11:48:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:49:40 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>My personal experience going to pilot training with both Saudis and
>with Iranians was that the Iranians were far better.
I spent some time in Iran in the early 1970s and Tehran was much more
like a European city that an Asian city. You could actually drink the
water, which was not the case anywhere else in Asia at the time. The
food was good and basic services on a level with Europe.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:05:04
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> Do you understand the concept; apples and oranges? Sorry, that was a
> rhetorical question. Of course you don't.
Ah....the Knipper nips again.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:59:38
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >
> >> If OPEC boycotts USA; the party is over in under a year.
> >
> > Are you sure? OPEC boycotted us in '73. It caused havoc but it
> > didn't destroy us.
>
> Our power requirements were profoundly different in 1973, remember?
Are you sure? IIRC, there were few cars who achieved good gas mileage.
Gas was 30 cents a gallon.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 22:11:36
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Dene wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Dene wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>
>>>> If OPEC boycotts USA; the party is over in under a year.
>>>
>>> Are you sure? OPEC boycotted us in '73. It caused havoc but it
>>> didn't destroy us.
>>
>> Our power requirements were profoundly different in 1973, remember?
>
> Are you sure? IIRC, there were few cars who achieved good gas
> mileage. Gas was 30 cents a gallon.
You think our power requirements have not gone up in the past thirty
some-odd years?
1) There are more fossil fuel power plants now than 1973.
2) There are more vehicles now than 1973.
3) Energy consumption is higher now than 1973.
Remember the rolling blackouts in California two years ago? Imagine them
in every state of the country with no end in sight. Then also imagine a lot
of people not being able to afford or get gasoline for their vehicles.
Lastly, picture USA as one big post-Katrina riot. USA does not want
OPEC boycotting them. That would be bad beyond imagination.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 10:43:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 22:11:36 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>USA does not want
>OPEC boycotting them. That would be bad beyond imagination.
An oil boycott of the US would have very little effect. If OPEC
wanted to hurt the US is would have to reduce production. Once they
put oil on the ket, there's no way they can stop the US from
getting it.
The boycott of 1974 had almost no effect on US supplies. The real
trouble was caused by Nixon's gasoline price controls. The price of
crude rose to a point where the oil companies couldn't sell gas at a
profit in the US. The oil companies are no fools, so the sent the
gasoline to where they could make a profit. If Nixon had allowed the
price of gas to float to ket levels, the oil embargo would have had
no effect.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 15:01:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > One obvious answer to the Iran problem is to beat the WMD drum and
> > invade. But the occupation of Iraq has been such a complete failure
> > it's hard to see how the chickenhawks in the White House could get
> > away with it.
>
> Yeah - I think there is no elegant way to invade and maintain. It never
> worked long term for any other country in history. Rebel agression
> post-invasion are just a part of life.
We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-elected
and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in his
place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was too
long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah years
see it differently.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:57:35
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-elected
> and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in his
> place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was too
> long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah
> years see it differently.
I was around for part of The Shah's reign. I did not know he was not
beloved. I must admit I don't know much about him other than that he came
to America for cancer treatment and Ayatollah went from France back to Iran
and then poof - the hostage crisis. I was a teenager in the mid 70's.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 13:36:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> multi wrote:
> > On 4 Dec 2006 10:18:23 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I passed the US Foreign Service exam
> > >and was invited to join.
> >
> > I find that very difficult to believe. The US Foreign Service has an
> > exam?
>
> Yes. Why is that hard to believe?
FYI, multi:
http://www.careers.state.gov/officer/join/index.html
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 13:29:15
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
multi wrote:
> On 4 Dec 2006 10:18:23 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I passed the US Foreign Service exam
> >and was invited to join.
>
> I find that very difficult to believe. The US Foreign Service has an
> exam?
Yes. Why is that hard to believe?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:20:21
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> multi wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2006 10:18:23 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I passed the US Foreign Service exam
>>> and was invited to join.
>>
>> I find that very difficult to believe. The US Foreign Service has an
>> exam?
>
> Yes. Why is that hard to believe?
Because he doesn't like you and it doesn't help his position?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 14:58:21
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 4 Dec 2006 13:29:15 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>multi wrote:
>> On 4 Dec 2006 10:18:23 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >I passed the US Foreign Service exam
>> >and was invited to join.
>>
>> I find that very difficult to believe. The US Foreign Service has an
>> exam?
>
>Yes. Why is that hard to believe?
It was a joke. But you have to admit, our diplomacy over the last
five years has shown no signs of competence.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:21:02
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
multi wrote:
> It was a joke. But you have to admit, our diplomacy over the last
> five years has shown no signs of competence.
Politics on this planet over the last five thousand years has shown no sign
of competance.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 00:43:41
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
>>We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-elected
>>and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in his
>>place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was too
>>long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah
>>years see it differently.
>
>
> I was around for part of The Shah's reign. I did not know he was not
> beloved. I must admit I don't know much about him other than that he came
> to America for cancer treatment and Ayatollah went from France back to Iran
> and then poof - the hostage crisis. I was a teenager in the mid 70's.
The two of you deserve to be talking to each other. John B. gets it all
wrong and the troll is just... well, an idiot.
Consider that Iran was ruled by the Shah as a constitutional Monarchy.
Hey guys, can you say "Great Britain"? He was overthrown in the Islamic
Fundy revolution in 1979. Er, what happened in '53?
Khomeini should never have left Paris alive and any thinking person in
the US knew that because what followed and what we are dealing with
today was obvious to the most casual observer.
Learn some history. Please!
Joe
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 23:32:57
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> If OPEC boycotts USA; the party is over in under a year.
Are you sure? OPEC boycotted us in '73. It caused havoc but it didn't
destroy us. IIRC, that event caught us with out pants down. We had no
national reserve. Alaska wasn't developed, nor Mexico, nor the Brit's
oil fields in the North Sea. Given these resources, we're probably
less vulnerable now than then.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:57:32
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Dene wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>
>> If OPEC boycotts USA; the party is over in under a year.
>
> Are you sure? OPEC boycotted us in '73. It caused havoc but it
> didn't destroy us.
Our power requirements were profoundly different in 1973, remember?
> IIRC, that event caught us with out pants down.
> We had no national reserve. Alaska wasn't developed, nor Mexico, nor
> the Brit's oil fields in the North Sea. Given these resources, we're
> probably less vulnerable now than then.
I think we consume way more now than we did then.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:24:34
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 23:32:57 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Head Shot wrote:
>
>> If OPEC boycotts USA; the party is over in under a year.
>
>Are you sure? OPEC boycotted us in '73. It caused havoc but it didn't
>destroy us. IIRC, that event caught us with out pants down. We had no
>national reserve. Alaska wasn't developed, nor Mexico, nor the Brit's
>oil fields in the North Sea. Given these resources, we're probably
>less vulnerable now than then.
>
>-Greg
All true.
And, oil embargos don't work. Once oil leaves the Middle East it can
go anywhere and there's little that OPEC can do about it. The only
thing that OPEC can do that would be effective is to cut production
and this is a two edged sword.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 23:26:55
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> The difficulty with the MAD concept is why would you want to get into
> such a situation if you didn't have to. Why would you allow your
> enemy to develop such weapons if you could stop them. Basically, an
> Iran with nukes would be a lot more difficult to deal with than an
> Iran without nukes. The threat that they would pose to the world
> would be much greater than it is now.
>
> Personally, I can't see the US allowing Iran to continue their nuclear
> program for very much longer.
Let's look at history. We had the bomb 5 years before the Soviet Union
did. Even after they became a nuclear power, their means to deliver it
was limited for years. Could we have stopped them from achieving
it.....sure....by blackmailing them with our bombs. Instead, we allowed
them to develop it while assuring them of complete destruction if they
used it. This doctrine kept a fragile peace intact for 50 years.
Iran's leaders will face the same choice as the leaders who occupied
the Kremlin, except they will be more isolated from the world
community, even Arab ones, who distrust Shia/Persians. (Recall that no
Arab country was on Iran's side in the Iraq/Iran war even though Saddam
was the agressor). Sooner or later, they will have to abandon their
program so their country can prosper.
So....for now.....let them build their weapon while they isolate
themselves. I don't think the USA can politically afford to be
preemptive unless Iran directly provokes us or one of our allies.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 20:21:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 23:26:55 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Let's look at history. We had the bomb 5 years before the Soviet Union
>did. Even after they became a nuclear power, their means to deliver it
>was limited for years. Could we have stopped them from achieving
>it.....sure....by blackmailing them with our bombs. Instead, we allowed
>them to develop it while assuring them of complete destruction if they
>used it. This doctrine kept a fragile peace intact for 50 years.
>Iran's leaders will face the same choice as the leaders who occupied
>the Kremlin, except they will be more isolated from the world
>community, even Arab ones, who distrust Shia/Persians. (Recall that no
>Arab country was on Iran's side in the Iraq/Iran war even though Saddam
>was the agressor). Sooner or later, they will have to abandon their
>program so their country can prosper.
>
>So....for now.....let them build their weapon while they isolate
>themselves. I don't think the USA can politically afford to be
>preemptive unless Iran directly provokes us or one of our allies.
>
>-Greg
After WW2 no one understood what the nuclear age would bring. The
Cold War was just starting and things like ICBMs didn't exist. There
was only a three year period between the end of WW2 and the first
Soviet nuclear test. It would have been quite an undertaking to stop
the Soviets. I doubt that anyone ever gave it any serious
consideration.
Iran, on the other hand is a different matter. The US is capable of
stopping their nuclear program and there are a lot of people that want
to do just that. The issue will definitely be brought up in the next
election. That is assuming that Bush doesn't decide to do it before
he leaves office. My guess is that the American people will support
an air campaign to eliminate the threat of a nuclear Iran.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:42:04
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:ac84n2997s7bt0d8obinqv8b5f1t1mrc9n@4ax.com...
> After WW2 no one understood what the nuclear age would bring. The
> Cold War was just starting and things like ICBMs didn't exist.
1957 Dec 17, First successful test of the Atlas ICBM
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 21:03:52
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:42:04 -0700, "glfnaz" <glfnaz@qwesttrash.com >
wrote:
>> After WW2 no one understood what the nuclear age would bring. The
>> Cold War was just starting and things like ICBMs didn't exist.
>
>1957 Dec 17, First successful test of the Atlas ICBM
The period in discussion is between 1945 and 1948. The Atlas launch
was nine years after the Soviet's developed their nuclear bomb.
In any case, this was not the first ICBM. The Soviets successfully
tested their R-7 ICBM missile in August 1957. The missile was more
powerful than the Atlas.
Ironically, the reason that the R-7 was more powerful was because
Soviet nuclear bombs were larger than American nuclear bombs and
needed more power to reach North America than the US rockets needed to
reach the Soviet Union.
In another twist of fate, the R-7 was also powerful enough to reach
escape velocity with a small payload and thus the Soviets got a foot
up in the space race.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 19:53:37
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
montmach@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.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Dec 2006 04:45:17
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
>You send Bushtard's daughters to Iraq and give them M16's and
> then see how fast he wants to pull out.
A "volunteer military" doesn't mean you get to volunteer other people
for service, Head Shot.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 08:42:21
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Also, it's hard to imagine that the Syrians would allow SH to move
> > truckloads of WMD over the border so they could store it for him. Why
> > would they do that?
>
>
> Because they wanted to keep them and were friends with Saddam? You are
> aware that after Gulf War I they took a shitload of fighter planes and
> tanks, right? Why do you think they did that?
No, I wasn't aware of that, but I'll take your word for it, even though
Iraq under SH and Syria didn't have diplomatic relations. As to your
question in the adjacent post about tanks and planes vis-a-vis WMD, the
answer is an emphatic yes, I see a huge difference. Everybody's got
tanks and fighter planes. We don't make noises about invading countries
because they have conventional weapons. Do you think we would have
invaded Iraq if we thought that was all he had?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:51:31
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Also, it's hard to imagine that the Syrians would allow SH to move
>>> truckloads of WMD over the border so they could store it for him.
>>> Why would they do that?
>>
>>
>> Because they wanted to keep them and were friends with Saddam? You
>> are aware that after Gulf War I they took a shitload of fighter
>> planes and tanks, right? Why do you think they did that?
>
> No, I wasn't aware of that, but I'll take your word for it, even
> though Iraq under SH and Syria didn't have diplomatic relations.
Well, Saddam was unloved by his peers because he was secular. That's why
he didn't have relations with countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia that
were fundemantalist. But they did have a personal relationship at the
highest levels and that'w why we were concerned that Saddam would flee to
Syria during Gulf War II.
> As
> to your question in the adjacent post about tanks and planes
> vis-a-vis WMD, the answer is an emphatic yes, I see a huge
> difference. Everybody's got tanks and fighter planes. We don't make
> noises about invading countries because they have conventional
> weapons.
I gave you the info about the planes and tanks going to Syria when Clinton
put in the no-fly zone only to show that Saddam did send stuff across the
border. The fact that Syria would take anything from Saddam was the point;
not necessarily what it actually was.
> Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if we thought that
> was all he had?
I don't think we invaded because of WMD's. I think we wanted to put a
puppet government in an oil state and hope that other oil states eventually
became democratic and then relied on western influence. Once a country is
in the WTO and gets lots of Western money and technology; they no longer
can go to war with us or treat us like the enemy. We want Saudi Arabia and
Iran to become democracies; and the oil companies are pushing hard in
Washington for Bushtard to make that happen.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:50:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164985637.012930.70130@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Also, it's hard to imagine that the Syrians would allow SH to move
> > truckloads of WMD over the border so they could store it for him. Why
> > would they do that?
>
> That seems like a silly question. I can imagine that the Syrians could find
> a reason to do so that made sense to them. That doesn't mean that it
> happened, but there's no reason to believe that it didn't.
>
> As far as I can tell, the best position is 'I don't know that it didn't
> happen, but I've got no reason to believe that it did.' Making positive
> statements that it never happened requires no less backup than from someone
> saying that it _did_ happen. Saying it doesn't make sense to you that Syria
> would allow something like this isn't really much backup.
>
> Scott
It was a rhetorical question that anybody with any understanding of
Middle Eastern politics would easily comprehend. It's seems reasonable
to me that Assad, who was not a friend of SH, would not want all that
shit hauled into his country, making him subject to attack by the US.
What on Earth would he have to gain from that? Your argument is that he
may have had some reason, but you can't think of what it might be.
That's really compelling.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 02:32:33
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164988208.902626.148020@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> That seems like a silly question. I can imagine that the Syrians could
>> find
>> a reason to do so that made sense to them. That doesn't mean that it
>> happened, but there's no reason to believe that it didn't.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the best position is 'I don't know that it didn't
>> happen, but I've got no reason to believe that it did.' Making positive
>> statements that it never happened requires no less backup than from
>> someone
>> saying that it _did_ happen. Saying it doesn't make sense to you that
>> Syria
>> would allow something like this isn't really much backup.
>>
>> Scott
>
> It was a rhetorical question that anybody with any understanding of
> Middle Eastern politics would easily comprehend. It's seems reasonable
> to me that Assad, who was not a friend of SH, would not want all that
> shit hauled into his country, making him subject to attack by the US.
> What on Earth would he have to gain from that? Your argument is that he
> may have had some reason, but you can't think of what it might be.
> That's really compelling.
You don't read very closely. I never said that I couldn't think of a
reason. That's your argument - that you can't imagine a reason, and
therefore anyone with any understanding must agree with you.
After considering the question for about 30 seconds, I could speculate that
Assad - realizing that only Israel is a more serious enemy to him than the
US - saw an opportunity to set a trap for the US in the case of an invasion
and at the same time improve his capabilities. He might have even realized
that - with commercial traffic occurring daily between Iraq and Syria prior
to the buildup of tensions - the chance of detection was small enough to
justify the risk.
Certainly he would never do anything as risky as encouraging the outfitting
of insurgents in Syria and their movement over the border into Iraq. That
would be crazy. Couldn't imagine him taking such a risk. What on Earth
would he have to gain from that?
By the way, before you tear the scenario apart, I've never said I believe
such a thing happened. I'm only saying that I still consider the
possibility that my opinion - namely that there was no pre-invasion transfer
of banned material to Syria (because there was little if any material in
Iraq to begin with) - is incorrect.
Since you seem to believe that it is not possible that you are wrong,
perhaps you could provide an argument more compelling than "I can't imagine
it' or 'anyone with an understanding of ME politics such as myself could
only believe what I believe.'
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:05:50
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 07:50:08 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>It's seems reasonable
>to me that Assad, who was not a friend of SH, would not want all that
>shit hauled into his country, making him subject to attack by the US.
>What on Earth would he have to gain from that? Your argument is that he
>may have had some reason, but you can't think of what it might be.
>That's really compelling.
Considering the fact that so many "rogue" states spend billions and
billions of dollars developing WMDs, why wouldn't Syria be happy to
get them for free?
Personally, I think the probability that Saddam moved his WMDs to
Syria, or anywhere else, is small but not out of the question. If
anything was moved, it would most likely be the materials from
Saddam's nuclear program. In this case it wouldn't be weapons but
equipment.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 11:29:13
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> It was a rhetorical question that anybody with any understanding of
> Middle Eastern politics would easily comprehend. It's seems reasonable
> to me that Assad, who was not a friend of SH, would not want all that
> shit hauled into his country, making him subject to attack by the US.
Why did Syria take Iraqi fighters and tanks after Gulf War I? You think
that's different than taking WMD's?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 11:24:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:29:13 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>John B. wrote:
>> It was a rhetorical question that anybody with any understanding of
>> Middle Eastern politics would easily comprehend. It's seems reasonable
>> to me that Assad, who was not a friend of SH, would not want all that
>> shit hauled into his country, making him subject to attack by the US.
>
>
>Why did Syria take Iraqi fighters and tanks after Gulf War I? You think
>that's different than taking WMD's?
>
>
You don't see the difference? One of them could've gotten them
invaded. Try to guess which one.
___,
\o
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:07:17
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:21:40 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
> >Jack Hollis wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >Saddam slaughtered thousands of Kurds; bombed Israel, invaded Kuwait,
> >and went to war with Iran. I am sure any WMD's he had are safe and secure
> >in Syria right about now.
>
>
> That's certainly possible. But chemical and biological weapons were
> not what the US was afraid of. Saddam's potential to develop nukes
> was the threat.
Horseshit. Bush and other senior admin. officials made MANY statements
about the "fact" that SH had chemical and bio weapons. They're all in
the public record. What do you think the UN inspectors were looking
for?
Also, it's hard to imagine that the Syrians would allow SH to move
truckloads of WMD over the border so they could store it for him. Why
would they do that?
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 14:27:31
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> It all depends on what you consider the most serious security risk. If
> a rogue state possessing nuclear weapons is the number one risk, then
> Iraq under Saddam is more of a threat than an ungoverned Iraq.
>
> So, while Iraq wasn't unified in the sense that all the people loved
> Saddam, it was unified in that Saddam controlled all or Iraq's assets
> and was dedicated to eventually building nuclear weapons.
And I'm dedicated eventually to shooting a 59 from the back tees on my
home course.
Best,
Ken
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:59:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 07:07:17 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> That's certainly possible. But chemical and biological weapons were
>> not what the US was afraid of. Saddam's potential to develop nukes
>> was the threat.
>
>
>Horseshit. Bush and other senior admin. officials made MANY statements
>about the "fact" that SH had chemical and bio weapons. They're all in
>the public record. What do you think the UN inspectors were looking
>for?
I'm aware of that. However, Saddam's biological and chemical weapons,
even if he still had them, were not a threat to the US. That's not
what the US was worried about. It was the long term threat of nuclear
weapons in Saddam's hands that was the real concern.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:04:16
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> I'm aware of that. However, Saddam's biological and chemical weapons,
> even if he still had them, were not a threat to the US. That's not
> what the US was worried about. It was the long term threat of nuclear
> weapons in Saddam's hands that was the real concern.
Nope. It was all about oil. The safety of the free world rests on the
ability to get shitloads of oil to power our energy reactors. We will
never know for sure; but I bet Dick "Shooter" HalliCheney got gazillions
fed to Swiss bank accounts for our Gulf War II involvement. *
* gotta run - the black helicopters are gonna find out I typed this.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:44:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:04:16 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> I'm aware of that. However, Saddam's biological and chemical weapons,
>> even if he still had them, were not a threat to the US. That's not
>> what the US was worried about. It was the long term threat of nuclear
>> weapons in Saddam's hands that was the real concern.
>
>
>Nope. It was all about oil.
Absolutly not. The US has not gotten control of Iraqi oil and has no
plans to do so.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 17:22:42
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:04:16 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> I'm aware of that. However, Saddam's biological and chemical
>>> weapons, even if he still had them, were not a threat to the US.
>>> That's not what the US was worried about. It was the long term
>>> threat of nuclear weapons in Saddam's hands that was the real
>>> concern.
>>
>>
>> Nope. It was all about oil.
>
> Absolutly not. The US has not gotten control of Iraqi oil and has no
> plans to do so.
You don't have to control the oil with a military presence - you have to
control the government that controls the oil. We own the Iraqi government
now. We got exactly what we wanted. And when democracy flourishes a
generation from now in Iraq; the citizens of Iran and Saudi Arabia will
pressure their governments to become democratic.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 02:27:11
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:22:42 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>> Absolutly not. The US has not gotten control of Iraqi oil and has no
>> plans to do so.
>
>
>You don't have to control the oil with a military presence - you have to
>control the government that controls the oil.
What do we do with control of the oil? Short of owning it, the only
thing that matters is whether a lot of it is available or a little. If
they sell the oil to us or to China doesn't matter, as it just changes
where others sell their oil.
Was this war to counter the effects of the sanctions?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 10:33:51
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:27:11 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>Was this war to counter the effects of the sanctions?
The war was to achiever a US policy that goes back to the Clinton
Administration --- regime change. Mission accomplished.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:46:26
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:22:42 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>You don't have to control the oil with a military presence - you have to
>control the government that controls the oil. We own the Iraqi government
>now. We got exactly what we wanted.
It's true that the US now buys more oil from Iraq than it did before
the sanctions were lifted, but so what. The US is not getting any
free oil from Iraq. If there's some benefit in terms of oil, I don't
know what it is. If the US didn't buy the oil from Iraq it would buy
it from someone else. Last time I looked Iraq was around seventh or
eighth on the list of countries that export oil to the US.
In addition, the drilling contracts awarded to foreign countries by
Iraq are not going to US companies. In fact, the big oil companies
like Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, BP and Shell are not even bidding on them.
Obviously, developing an oil field in Iraq is a high risk venture and
big companies shy away from high risk ventures.
There's no doubt that American companies will get contracts to
modernize Iraq's existing oil infrastructure, but so will companies
from other countries. When you look at the total picture, the war
will have cost the US a lot more than it will ever get back.
This mantra that it's all about oil is simply not the case.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 21:51:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> It's true that the US now buys more oil from Iraq than it did before
> the sanctions were lifted, but so what. The US is not getting any
> free oil from Iraq. If there's some benefit in terms of oil, I don't
> know what it is. If the US didn't buy the oil from Iraq it would buy
> it from someone else. Last time I looked Iraq was around seventh or
> eighth on the list of countries that export oil to the US.
Nobody cares what the price of oil is. That's such a small part of what
becomes the cost of firing an oil reactor or putting gasoline in your car.
It's the fact that now a country with a gazillion tons of crude cannot
boycott us because we own the country's government.
> There's no doubt that American companies will get contracts to
> modernize Iraq's existing oil infrastructure, but so will companies
> from other countries. When you look at the total picture, the war
> will have cost the US a lot more than it will ever get back.
What is the price of safety? Fundamentalist countries do nothing for USA's
domestic safety.
> This mantra that it's all about oil is simply not the case.
I still think it is - you have not convinced me otherwise.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 22:28:18
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:04:16 -0500, "Head Shot"
>><HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm aware of that. However, Saddam's biological and chemical
>>>>weapons, even if he still had them, were not a threat to the US.
>>>>That's not what the US was worried about. It was the long term
>>>>threat of nuclear weapons in Saddam's hands that was the real
>>>>concern.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. It was all about oil.
>>
>>Absolutly not. The US has not gotten control of Iraqi oil and has no
>>plans to do so.
>
>
>
> You don't have to control the oil with a military presence - you have to
> control the government that controls the oil. We own the Iraqi government
> now. We got exactly what we wanted. And when democracy flourishes a
> generation from now in Iraq; the citizens of Iran and Saudi Arabia will
> pressure their governments to become democratic.
>
This is your best effort at critical thinking Troll?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 11:25:07
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> Also, it's hard to imagine that the Syrians would allow SH to move
> truckloads of WMD over the border so they could store it for him. Why
> would they do that?
Because they wanted to keep them and were friends with Saddam? You are
aware that after Gulf War I they took a shitload of fighter planes and
tanks, right? Why do you think they did that?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:22:22
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164985637.012930.70130@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Also, it's hard to imagine that the Syrians would allow SH to move
> truckloads of WMD over the border so they could store it for him. Why
> would they do that?
That seems like a silly question. I can imagine that the Syrians could find
a reason to do so that made sense to them. That doesn't mean that it
happened, but there's no reason to believe that it didn't.
As far as I can tell, the best position is 'I don't know that it didn't
happen, but I've got no reason to believe that it did.' Making positive
statements that it never happened requires no less backup than from someone
saying that it _did_ happen. Saying it doesn't make sense to you that Syria
would allow something like this isn't really much backup.
Scott
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:31:42
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3l7j4tIj22N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> montmach@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.
We haven't lost the war. You are just so anxious to surrender you can't
tell the difference.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 13:39:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> >>Head Shot wrote:
> >>
> >>>John B. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-elected
> >>>>and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in his
> >>>>place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was too
> >>>>long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah
> >>>>years see it differently.
>
> Snip drivel
>
> >>
> >>The two of you deserve to be talking to each other. John B. gets it all
> >>wrong and
>
> SNIP
>
> >>Consider that Iran was ruled by the Shah as a constitutional Monarchy.
> >>Hey guys, can you say "Great Britain"? He was overthrown in the Islamic
> >>Fundy revolution in 1979. Er, what happened in '53?
> >
> >
> > You presume to know something about Iran and then asked what happened
> > in 1953? And you think that Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy?
> > You're quite the foreign policy scholar, aren't you? If you really want
> > to enlighten yourself about this, go onto wikipedia and do a search for
> > Mohammad Mossadegh. Then do one for Kermit Roosevelt.
>
> First off, I was objecting to "We already fucked Iran once by
> overthrowing a democratically-elected and beloved president in 1953 and
> installing the scumbag Shah in his place." from your post. Mossadegh
> was not president, but he was prime minister. The Shah was in power
> long before and after 1953.
That is absolutely false and you don't know what you're talking about.
Mossadegh was president and the Shah had no power at all before 1953.
>
> Secondly, Your own source supports to statement that the UK is a
> Constitutional monarchy, as would any of the Brits who might be here.
> Further, because of the duration of that Monarchy the reigning monarch
> has considerable power of prerogative amongst the people. The same for
> the Shah, except for the uneducated Islamic Fundies.
The British monarchy has no governmental authority. If they call the UK
a constitutional monarchy, its an anchronism.
>
> Thirdly, you attempt to reduce the complex nature of Iranian and middle
> east politics to a simplistic two phrase statement.
Which was?
>
> Fourth, you implicitly affirm your position that any political hack
> elected by the Least Common Denominator is a superior leader of people
> to a non elected official. You realize that the founders and framers of
> our own US constitution never envisioned the electorate to be one person
> one vote of all living breathing citizens. The intent was to elect an
> individual who would represent and hold foremost, the best interests of
> the local and national population. That is far from representing the
> current desires of the constituents.
>
He wasn't elected by the least common domoinator, you fucking idiot. He
was elected by the people of Iran. And you're goddamn right I believe
an elected head of state is better than one who is installed via a
violent coup fomented by a foreign power.
> >>Khomeini should never have left Paris alive and any thinking person in
> >>the US knew that because what followed and what we are dealing with
> >>today was obvious to the most casual observer.
>
> By your failure to respond to the above I must assume that you agree
> that allowing Khomeini to return to Iran ks the beginning of the
> crisis that the west is facing.
It ked a middle point. You just don't know about anything that
happened in that part of the world before 1979.
>
> With regard to your comment about SAVAK, from another post, are the
> enlightened Mullahs of Iran doing any better?
>
> >>Learn some history. Please!
If you're such a Middle Eastern history scholar, then why don't you
expound on the history of British involvement in Iran in the 30s and
40s, which led indirectly to the 1953 coup. You don't know shit about
Middle Eastern history.
> >>Joe
> >
> >
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:35:34
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 3 Dec 2006 13:39:16 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>The British monarchy has no governmental authority. If they call the UK
>a constitutional monarchy, its an anchronism.
One wonders how you passed a State Department test. The UK is a
constitutional monarchy, where the Queen is the Head of State. In
fact, one of the earks of a constitutional monarchy is that the
monarch has either no, or very little authority. As they say in the
UK, "The Queen reigns, but she does not rule."
Nevertheless, no law can be passed without her signature.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 22:11:54
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>=20
>>John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Head Shot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We already fucked Iran once by overthrowing a democratically-electe=
d
>>>>>>and beloved president in 1953 and installing the scumbag Shah in hi=
s
>>>>>>place. Most Americans either don't know about that or think it was=
too
>>>>>>long ago to matter today. But Iranians who lived through the Shah
>>>>>>years see it differently.
>>
>>Snip drivel
>>
>>
>>>>The two of you deserve to be talking to each other. John B. gets it =
all
>>>>wrong and
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>
>>>>Consider that Iran was ruled by the Shah as a constitutional Monarchy=
=2E
>>>>Hey guys, can you say "Great Britain"? He was overthrown in the Isla=
mic
>>>>Fundy revolution in 1979. Er, what happened in '53?
>>>
>>>
>>>You presume to know something about Iran and then asked what happened
>>>in 1953? And you think that Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy=
?
>>>You're quite the foreign policy scholar, aren't you? If you really wan=
t
>>>to enlighten yourself about this, go onto wikipedia and do a search fo=
r
>>>Mohammad Mossadegh. Then do one for Kermit Roosevelt.
>>
>>First off, I was objecting to "We already fucked Iran once by
>>overthrowing a democratically-elected and beloved president in 1953 and=
>>installing the scumbag Shah in his place." from your post. Mossadegh
>>was not president, but he was prime minister. The Shah was in power
>>long before and after 1953.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> That is absolutely false and you don't know what you're talking about.
> Mossadegh was president and the Shah had no power at all before 1953.
"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: ???? ??? ??????) (October =
16, 1919, Tehran =96 July 27, 1980, Cairo), styled His Imperial Majesty, =
and holding the imperial titles of Sha-hansha-h (King of Kings) and=20
Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans), was the the monarchial ruler of Iran=20
from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11,=20
1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah =
of the Iranian monarchy."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As regards "President Mossadegh" Wrong again.
Mohammed Mossadegh (Mossadeq (help=B7info))(Persian: ???? ?????? , also=20
Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq) (19 May 1882 - 5 ch 1967) was the=20
democratically elected[1] prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He=20
was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of=20
Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament [2]. Mossadegh was a=20
nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He=20
was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil=20
industry which was dominated and exploited by the British through the=20
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as British Petroleum
Source: your favorite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
Mohammed Mossadegh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>=20
>>Secondly, Your own source supports to statement that the UK is a
>>Constitutional monarchy, as would any of the Brits who might be here.
>>Further, because of the duration of that Monarchy the reigning monarch
>>has considerable power of prerogative amongst the people. The same for=
>>the Shah, except for the uneducated Islamic Fundies.
>=20
>=20
> The British monarchy has no governmental authority.=20
True enough
If they call the UK
> a constitutional monarchy, its an anchronism.
Tell that to the Brits.
>=20
>=20
>>Thirdly, you attempt to reduce the complex nature of Iranian and middle=
>>east politics to a simplistic two phrase statement.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Which was?
"We already fucked Iran once by
overthrowing a democratically-elected and beloved president in 1953 and
installing the scumbag Shah in his place."
>=20
>>Fourth, you implicitly affirm your position that any political hack
>>elected by the Least Common Denominator is a superior leader of people
>>to a non elected official. You realize that the founders and framers o=
f
>>our own US constitution never envisioned the electorate to be one perso=
n
>>one vote of all living breathing citizens. The intent was to elect an
>>individual who would represent and hold foremost, the best interests of=
>>the local and national population. That is far from representing the
>>current desires of the constituents.
>>
>=20
> He wasn't elected by the least common domoinator, you fucking idiot.=20
Ahh! the Ultra Libby comes out. Can't maintain polite discourse, can yo=
u?
And that is Denominator Ace. And do you understand the term?
>He was elected by the people of Iran. And you're goddamn right I believe=
> an elected head of state is better than one who is installed via a
> violent coup fomented by a foreign power.
Shifting the goal posts again. Address the question posed, not a side sp=
in.
>=20
>>>>Khomeini should never have left Paris alive and any thinking person i=
n
>>>>the US knew that because what followed and what we are dealing with
>>>>today was obvious to the most casual observer.
>>
>>By your failure to respond to the above I must assume that you agree
>>that allowing Khomeini to return to Iran ks the beginning of the
>>crisis that the west is facing.
>=20
>=20
> It ked a middle point. You just don't know about anything that
> happened in that part of the world before 1979.
Again, you didn't address the statement and question. Try and stay on=20
topic. It's hard I know but I'm sure you can do it.
Besides there really is no need to know the month by month details of=20
the history of the middle east at any time. It has been the same miasma =
of family, clan, tribe and cult intercine fighting for the past 3000=20
years. There have been minor periods of rationalism when someone st, =
enlightened and ruthless rose to the top of one of the local dung heaps.
But that doesn't fit your model does it?
>=20
>=20
>>With regard to your comment about SAVAK, from another post, are the
>>enlightened Mullahs of Iran doing any better?
No attempt to address this either.
>=20
SNIP
>=20
> If you're such a Middle Eastern history scholar, then why don't you
> expound on the history of British involvement in Iran in the 30s and
> 40s, which led indirectly to the 1953 coup. You don't know shit about
> Middle Eastern history.=20
Moving the target again. Stay on point boy!
But see above.
Who are you really John B ?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 01:53:41
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Joe" <Joe@nospamwarwickDOTnet.org > wrote in message
news:KYHch.23383$tb6.159@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>> That is absolutely false and you don't know what you're talking about.
>> Mossadegh was president and the Shah had no power at all before 1953.
>"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Shah of Iran (Persian: ???? ??? ??????) (October
16, 1919, Tehran - July 27, 1980, Cairo), styled His Imperial Majesty,
and holding the imperial titles of Sha-hansha-h (King of Kings) and
Aryamehr (Light of the Aryans), was the the monarchial ruler of Iran
from September 16, 1941 until the Iranian Revolution on February 11,
1979. He was the second monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty and the last Shah
of the Iranian monarchy."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>As regards "President Mossadegh" Wrong again.
>Mohammed Mossadegh (Mossadeq (help·info))(Persian: ???? ?????? , also
Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq) (19 May 1882 - 5 ch 1967) was the
democratically elected[1] prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He
was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of
Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament [2]. Mossadegh was a
nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He
was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil
industry which was dominated and exploited by the British through the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as British Petroleum
>Source: your favorite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
>Mohammed Mossadegh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ouch! I almost hate to watch. I hope John B.'s bad temper hasn't cause him
to say anything stupid. I sure hope he doesn't call anyone an idiot after
that little slip.
>>
>> He wasn't elected by the least common domoinator, you fucking idiot.
Doh! He did. Now isn't that akward. At least you really told him, John B.
I bet Joe knows better than to mess with you anymore!
ROFL
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 13:24:55
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165165187.225908.47180@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >> Cutting off the supply lines to the manpower equivalent of 14 American
> >> combat divisions would be a stunning achievement for the Iranian army.
> >> It
> >> would stand for less than 24 hours, but nevertheless it would be an
> >> impressive military feat. For irregular forces to do this would be
> >> closer
> >> to miraculous. At best, realistically they could make personnel on
> >> supply
> >> convoys more nervous than they already are.
> >
> > 14 divisions? the entire US Army consists of 12 divisions, the ine
> > Corps the equivalent of three.
>
> Hence the phrase manpower equivalents, which is also not completely correct,
> since the authorized strength for an American division can be over 30,000.
> Typical combat strength is 10 - 15K. Since we have ~ 140,000 military
> personnel in Iraq, that's somewhere in the ballpark of the manpower equiv
> of 14 US infantry divisions. But that's just nitpicking.
>
> By the way, you are well off. The Army has 10 active divisions, 2
> integrated divisions, 8 reserve divisions, about 6 divisions worth of
> seperate reserve brigades, 17 reserve artillery brigades, etc. ad nausem.
> Ditto with the ine Corp, which consists of wildly more than three combat
> divisions.
>
> If you prefer, I will revise my original statement to read 'Cutting off the
> supply lines to about 140,000 US military personnel would be...'
>
> Scott
There are 15 combat brigades (not divisions) in Iraq. I assume that's
what you meant. The ine Corps consists of 3 ine Expeditionary
Units or MEFs, each of which is roughly equivalent to an Army division.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 08:59:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1T3lv5smIpo5N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> > :
> > : No, I'm telling you that a blitz across southern Iraq designed to cut
> > off
> > : the supply lines of US forces in Iraq would be a farce. I thought that
> > was
> > : the language you used, but if that's not what you were talking about, I
> > : apologize for misinterpreting.
> >
> > Well, that's the same thing. If the Iranians blitzed across the
> > Shia south, they enjoy popular support and would be very difficult
> > to drive out. All they'd have to do is hold enough position to
> > make a few highways impassable and our lines would be cut.
> >
>
> I understood blitz as meaning a conventional combined-arms force attacking
> (as in blitzkrieg). Understanding what you were saying, I'd respond that
> irregular forces could never accomplish what you are talking about, and they
> would be foolish to try. Insurgents and militia must remain in harass and
> small-scale interdiction mode to succeed against front-line regular armed
> forces. When they try to go beyond that, they will almost always get their
> ass handed to them.
>
> Cutting off the supply lines to the manpower equivalent of 14 American
> combat divisions would be a stunning achievement for the Iranian army. It
> would stand for less than 24 hours, but nevertheless it would be an
> impressive military feat. For irregular forces to do this would be closer
> to miraculous. At best, realistically they could make personnel on supply
> convoys more nervous than they already are.
>
> Scott
14 divisions? the entire US Army consists of 12 divisions, the ine
Corps the equivalent of three.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 21:00:15
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165165187.225908.47180@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> Cutting off the supply lines to the manpower equivalent of 14 American
>> combat divisions would be a stunning achievement for the Iranian army.
>> It
>> would stand for less than 24 hours, but nevertheless it would be an
>> impressive military feat. For irregular forces to do this would be
>> closer
>> to miraculous. At best, realistically they could make personnel on
>> supply
>> convoys more nervous than they already are.
>
> 14 divisions? the entire US Army consists of 12 divisions, the ine
> Corps the equivalent of three.
Hence the phrase manpower equivalents, which is also not completely correct,
since the authorized strength for an American division can be over 30,000.
Typical combat strength is 10 - 15K. Since we have ~ 140,000 military
personnel in Iraq, that's somewhere in the ballpark of the manpower equiv
of 14 US infantry divisions. But that's just nitpicking.
By the way, you are well off. The Army has 10 active divisions, 2
integrated divisions, 8 reserve divisions, about 6 divisions worth of
seperate reserve brigades, 17 reserve artillery brigades, etc. ad nausem.
Ditto with the ine Corp, which consists of wildly more than three combat
divisions.
If you prefer, I will revise my original statement to read 'Cutting off the
supply lines to about 140,000 US military personnel would be...'
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 23:15:14
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> : On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> : <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :
> :>I hate to break it to you, Jack, but there isn't much the US
> :>can do about it at this point, and the Iranians know it. We
> :>are one Iranian blitz across the south of Iraq from losing
> :>our forces there. All of them. Unless, of course, you're one
> :>of the exceptionalists who believes that our guys don't need
> :>supply lines. (I don't think you are, but I know these guys
> :>exist.)
> :>
> :>Thanks to Bush, the limits of our capabilities are now well
> :>known the world over.
> :
> : There are very few people who would consider a ground war in Iran. The
> : war would be conducted entirely by air.
>
> And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
> exactly?
It's probably a moot question, Chris. The next president will be the
one dealing directly with Iran, our most formidable enemy. By that
time, our involvement in Iraq will be downsized, leaving it up to the
Iraqis responsible for their own security, without and outside of their
borders.
-Greg
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:11:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 23:15:14 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>> And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
>> exactly?
>
>It's probably a moot question, Chris. The next president will be the
>one dealing directly with Iran, our most formidable enemy. By that
>time, our involvement in Iraq will be downsized, leaving it up to the
>Iraqis responsible for their own security, without and outside of their
>borders.
>
>-Greg
I'd say that's a likely scenario.
Besides, if the US attacks Iran and Iran wants to up the ante, they do
so at their own peril.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 00:03:58
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
In article <UeSdnaOLO5szAfHYnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@centurytel.net >
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0T3l7j4tIj22N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> > montmach@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.
>
> We haven't lost the war. You are just so anxious to surrender you can't
> tell the difference.
Since you love this war so much, have you fought in it or had anyone die
in it and just how soon will you be voluteering yourself and your loved
ones to go and help fight it? Oh, females are welcome too and you could
go just in time for the holidays. Just curious but please tell us soon
but if you choose to ignore the question, shut your fuckin piehole.
That's called put up or shut up in the poker world.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 15:32:48
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:31:42 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0T3l7j4tIj22N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>> montmach@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.
>
>We haven't lost the war. You are just so anxious to surrender you can't
>tell the difference.
>
Be serious. Even the hawks in the military are admitting that this
can't be won.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 12:11:53
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164045341.193569.241950@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > the Moderator wrote:
> > > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> > > news:6rhsl2hergml12s4c1d2bfhlph89p8gvdl@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.
> >
> >
> > 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.
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.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:41:40
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 11:30:17 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
> >USA cannot stop it now. Iran built the facilities deep underground to
> >protect from their destruction. They will be a nuclear power within a half
> >decade or so.
>
>
> Of course the US can stop Iran from making nuclear weapons. The US
> could make it impossible for Iran to produce transistor radios if it
> wanted to.
>
> The US doesn't have to destroy all of Iran's nuclear production
> facilities, it only has to convince Iran to give up their nuclear
> aspirations and agree to a stringent inspection regime.
>
> One could imagine a military bombing campaign of ever increasing
> intensity until Iran agree to stop their nuclear program and agree to
> inspections. If they want to be stubborn about it, Iran would
> eventually cease to function as a modern nation and thus be unable to
> continue with their nuclear program.
Agree that we have the power to stop them. However, I think a better
alternative is that Iran is allowed to develop these weapons and
consequently are sanctioned. Sanctions, in of themselves, are nothing
but a M.A.D. threat counts. Plutonium is traceable to the origin. If
Iran exports this or a weapon, we would know the source. If a device
is used on us or one of our allies, then Iran will know they will
suffer destruction on a far grander scale than what they can deliver.
Imagine saying to Tehran. "You have 24 hours to evacuate your city.
After that, we will turn it into a parking lot." Me thinks Iran will
not take that chance, with us or Israel.
Given this scenario, along with sanctions, what is Iran or NK really
gaining by going nuclear?
The gain is only in the process of becoming nuclear. My vote is that
we let them play the cards.
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 20:36:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 1 Dec 2006 12:41:40 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Agree that we have the power to stop them. However, I think a better
>alternative is that Iran is allowed to develop these weapons and
>consequently are sanctioned. Sanctions, in of themselves, are nothing
>but a M.A.D. threat counts. Plutonium is traceable to the origin. If
>Iran exports this or a weapon, we would know the source. If a device
>is used on us or one of our allies, then Iran will know they will
>suffer destruction on a far grander scale than what they can deliver.
>Imagine saying to Tehran. "You have 24 hours to evacuate your city.
>After that, we will turn it into a parking lot." Me thinks Iran will
>not take that chance, with us or Israel.
>
>Given this scenario, along with sanctions, what is Iran or NK really
>gaining by going nuclear?
>The gain is only in the process of becoming nuclear. My vote is that
>we let them play the cards.
>
>-Greg
The difficulty with the MAD concept is why would you want to get into
such a situation if you didn't have to. Why would you allow your
enemy to develop such weapons if you could stop them. Basically, an
Iran with nukes would be a lot more difficult to deal with than an
Iran without nukes. The threat that they would pose to the world
would be much greater than it is now.
Personally, I can't see the US allowing Iran to continue their nuclear
program for very much longer.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 02:09:02
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On 1 Dec 2006 12:41:40 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
:
: >Agree that we have the power to stop them. However, I think a better
: >alternative is that Iran is allowed to develop these weapons and
: >consequently are sanctioned. Sanctions, in of themselves, are nothing
: >but a M.A.D. threat counts. Plutonium is traceable to the origin. If
: >Iran exports this or a weapon, we would know the source. If a device
: >is used on us or one of our allies, then Iran will know they will
: >suffer destruction on a far grander scale than what they can deliver.
: >Imagine saying to Tehran. "You have 24 hours to evacuate your city.
: >After that, we will turn it into a parking lot." Me thinks Iran will
: >not take that chance, with us or Israel.
: >
: >Given this scenario, along with sanctions, what is Iran or NK really
: >gaining by going nuclear?
: >The gain is only in the process of becoming nuclear. My vote is that
: >we let them play the cards.
: >
: >-Greg
:
:
: The difficulty with the MAD concept is why would you want to get into
: such a situation if you didn't have to. Why would you allow your
: enemy to develop such weapons if you could stop them. Basically, an
: Iran with nukes would be a lot more difficult to deal with than an
: Iran without nukes. The threat that they would pose to the world
: would be much greater than it is now.
:
: Personally, I can't see the US allowing Iran to continue their nuclear
: program for very much longer.
I hate to break it to you, Jack, but there isn't much the US
can do about it at this point, and the Iranians know it. We
are one Iranian blitz across the south of Iraq from losing
our forces there. All of them. Unless, of course, you're one
of the exceptionalists who believes that our guys don't need
supply lines. (I don't think you are, but I know these guys
exist.)
Thanks to Bush, the limits of our capabilities are now well
known the world over.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 22:38:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>I hate to break it to you, Jack, but there isn't much the US
>can do about it at this point, and the Iranians know it. We
>are one Iranian blitz across the south of Iraq from losing
>our forces there. All of them. Unless, of course, you're one
>of the exceptionalists who believes that our guys don't need
>supply lines. (I don't think you are, but I know these guys
>exist.)
>
>Thanks to Bush, the limits of our capabilities are now well
>known the world over.
There are very few people who would consider a ground war in Iran. The
war would be conducted entirely by air. There might be times when
ground troops would be used (perhaps to do damage assessment) but the
idea of invading and occupying Iran is not being considered.
Long range bombers could be launched from as far away as the US if
necessary. The rest could be carried out from aircraft carriers and
other ships in the Gulf. There's absolutely nothing stopping the US
from doing this right now.
Actually, there's a rather extensive paper from the CSIS which
includes an analysis of what a US military strike on Iran would be
like. You will notice that nowhere does it include using troops.
Here's a quote from the article. It's worth reading the whole thing.
"Options also do not need to be limited to known targets or nuclear
targets. A power as large as the US could strike at possible targets
as well. The problem with a shell gamer is that it virtually provokes
strikes at all the shells.
The US also could strike at a wide range of critical Iranian military
facilities, including its missile production facilities. Most are soft
targets, and would be extremely costly to Iran.
Even if many of Iran's nuclear facilities did survive US strikes, Iran
would be faced with either complying with the EU3 and UN terms or
taking much broader military losses -- losses its aging and limited
forces can ill afford.
More generally, the US could cripple Iran's economy by striking at
major domestic gas production and distribution facilities, refineries,
and electric power generators. Iran may have a lever in terms of
suspending its oil exports, but the Iranian economy has a highly
fragile infrastructure and selective strikes could paralyze a great
deal of Iran's economic activity outside the oil sector in ways that
would put intense pressure on Iran to both suspend its nuclear
activity and export at maximum rates to fund its economic recovery.
There are no rules that would preclude the US from immediate restrikes
or restrikes over time. If the US chose to strike at the necessary
level of intensity, it could use conventional weapons to cripple
Iran's ability to function as a nation in a matter of days with
attacks limited to several hundred aim points."
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,3461/type,1/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 03:57:11
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
: On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:09:02 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >I hate to break it to you, Jack, but there isn't much the US
: >can do about it at this point, and the Iranians know it. We
: >are one Iranian blitz across the south of Iraq from losing
: >our forces there. All of them. Unless, of course, you're one
: >of the exceptionalists who believes that our guys don't need
: >supply lines. (I don't think you are, but I know these guys
: >exist.)
: >
: >Thanks to Bush, the limits of our capabilities are now well
: >known the world over.
:
: There are very few people who would consider a ground war in Iran. The
: war would be conducted entirely by air.
And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
exactly?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:09:51
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:57:11 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: There are very few people who would consider a ground war in Iran. The
>: war would be conducted entirely by air.
>
>And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
>exactly?
One of the possible tactics used by Iran could be to heat things up in
Iraq. However, if the Shia militias want to get frisky and confront
US forces directly, they will find it difficult going. This would be
a case of, "Go ahead, make my day."
Hijacking civilian truck convoys is one thing and attacking US supply
convoys guarded by tanks is another.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 05:15:12
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3ltig0Idp9N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :>
> :>Thanks to Bush, the limits of our capabilities are now well
> :>known the world over.
> :
> : There are very few people who would consider a ground war in Iran. The
> : war would be conducted entirely by air.
>
> And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
> exactly?
You underestimate the US military. No one in the Iranian military would be
silly enough to consider a conventional assault against US forces in Iraq
under any circumstances.
What has been reiterated by this war is that we excel at conventional /
set-piece battles, but we suck at asymmetrical warfare (particularly opposed
occupation). But your argument involves the first clause. Iran entering
Iraq with massed conventional forces = the destruction of Iran's
conventional armed forces. They know that, and so it will never happen.
That would provide a pretext that many in the US strategy & planning
community could only have dreamed of.
Defeating the US is not their goal. Dominating the Middle East is. From
Iran's perspective, direct military conflict with the US would represent a
catostrophic failure of foreign policy. Their goal vis-a-vis the US is
reestablishment of diplomatic relations, mostly because they feel it would
serve their priy goal of regional dominance. I believe that this is a
large motive in their nuclear program. It may represent a huge
miscalculation on their part, but I think it is nevertheless the driving
force behind the program.
Scott
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:13:47
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3ltig0Idp9N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > :>
: > :>Thanks to Bush, the limits of our capabilities are now well
: > :>known the world over.
: > :
: > : There are very few people who would consider a ground war in Iran. The
: > : war would be conducted entirely by air.
: >
: > And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
: > exactly?
:
: You underestimate the US military. No one in the Iranian military would be
: silly enough to consider a conventional assault against US forces in Iraq
: under any circumstances.
Are you telling me that an Iranian-induced Shia insurrection
in the South of Iraq could be quelled by the US military?
Maybe so, but I wouldn't want to have to find out.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 07:37:11
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3lttupIghfN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
> :> exactly?
> :
> : You underestimate the US military. No one in the Iranian military would
> be
> : silly enough to consider a conventional assault against US forces in
> Iraq
> : under any circumstances.
>
> Are you telling me that an Iranian-induced Shia insurrection
> in the South of Iraq could be quelled by the US military?
> Maybe so, but I wouldn't want to have to find out.
No, I'm telling you that a blitz across southern Iraq designed to cut off
the supply lines of US forces in Iraq would be a farce. I thought that was
the language you used, but if that's not what you were talking about, I
apologize for misinterpreting.
Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 18:35:38
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
S McFarlane <spam@nothanks.com > wrote:
:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3lttupIghfN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
:
: > :> And this would prevent Iran cutting our supply lines in Iraq how,
: > :> exactly?
: > :
: > : You underestimate the US military. No one in the Iranian military would
: > be
: > : silly enough to consider a conventional assault against US forces in
: > Iraq
: > : under any circumstances.
: >
: > Are you telling me that an Iranian-induced Shia insurrection
: > in the South of Iraq could be quelled by the US military?
: > Maybe so, but I wouldn't want to have to find out.
:
: No, I'm telling you that a blitz across southern Iraq designed to cut off
: the supply lines of US forces in Iraq would be a farce. I thought that was
: the language you used, but if that's not what you were talking about, I
: apologize for misinterpreting.
Well, that's the same thing. If the Iranians blitzed across the
Shia south, they enjoy popular support and would be very difficult
to drive out. All they'd have to do is hold enough position to
make a few highways impassable and our lines would be cut.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 04:17:28
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3lv5smIpo5N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :
> : No, I'm telling you that a blitz across southern Iraq designed to cut
> off
> : the supply lines of US forces in Iraq would be a farce. I thought that
> was
> : the language you used, but if that's not what you were talking about, I
> : apologize for misinterpreting.
>
> Well, that's the same thing. If the Iranians blitzed across the
> Shia south, they enjoy popular support and would be very difficult
> to drive out. All they'd have to do is hold enough position to
> make a few highways impassable and our lines would be cut.
>
I understood blitz as meaning a conventional combined-arms force attacking
(as in blitzkrieg). Understanding what you were saying, I'd respond that
irregular forces could never accomplish what you are talking about, and they
would be foolish to try. Insurgents and militia must remain in harass and
small-scale interdiction mode to succeed against front-line regular armed
forces. When they try to go beyond that, they will almost always get their
ass handed to them.
Cutting off the supply lines to the manpower equivalent of 14 American
combat divisions would be a stunning achievement for the Iranian army. It
would stand for less than 24 hours, but nevertheless it would be an
impressive military feat. For irregular forces to do this would be closer
to miraculous. At best, realistically they could make personnel on supply
convoys more nervous than they already are.
Scott
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Dec 2006 14:41:15
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:35:38 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> All they'd have to do is hold enough position to
>make a few highways impassable and our lines would be cut.
I'd say that the rag tag Shia militias would find it very difficult to
hold any positions against an armored division. All the US would have
to do is provide increased firepower and provide air support for
supply convoys.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 22:41:02
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> There are very few people who would consider a ground war in Iran. The
> war would be conducted entirely by air. There might be times when
> ground troops would be used (perhaps to do damage assessment) but the
> idea of invading and occupying Iran is not being considered.
I don't think USA is considering any kind of war with Iran. I think they
learned from the Iraq fiasco that these things are not always warmly
embraced by the voters.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 15:09:48
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2006 10:58:03 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> 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.
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.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 16:17:23
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164053512.963724.249790@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 18:43:22
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:47:22 GMT, Carbon
> <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Gee, maybe we should invade them too. And all those other countries with
> >oil. Including Canada.
>
> If Canada was worth invading, it would have been part of the US two
> hundred years ago.
The US took a shot about 200 years ago now.. and lost. The country was
actually created because of the threat of US invasion.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 12:52:56
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 30 Nov 2006 18:43:22 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>> If Canada was worth invading, it would have been part of the US two
>> hundred years ago.
>
>The US took a shot about 200 years ago now.. and lost. The country was
>actually created because of the threat of US invasion.
The US never really got serious about taking Canada. Any attempts
they made were motivated more by a desire to get rid of the British
than any desire to possess the land. Of course, there was a bit of a
border dispute over the Oregon Territory but it was resolved
peacefully with a compromise at the 49th parallel.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 13:00:38
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 18:43:22 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> If Canada was worth invading, it would have been part of the US two
>>> hundred years ago.
>>
>> The US took a shot about 200 years ago now.. and lost. The country
>> was actually created because of the threat of US invasion.
>
> The US never really got serious about taking Canada. Any attempts
> they made were motivated more by a desire to get rid of the British
> than any desire to possess the land. Of course, there was a bit of a
> border dispute over the Oregon Territory but it was resolved
> peacefully with a compromise at the 49th parallel.
When they ched into Washington DC and burned the White House and Senate
to the ground; I think we figured we better not screw with them any more.
If they can kick the crap out of hoardes of moose; they can whoop some
people with muskets like it was nothing. :-)
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:54:45
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2006 17:40:16 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
Thank you for confirming your stupidity.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 06:03:26
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
>As the old joke goes, we knew he had WMDs in the 1980's, because we
> have the receipts.<
More "myth from multi." Russia and France were chiefly responsible for
Saddam's arsenal.
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 10:13:37
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
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****
> If Nixon wouldn't have decided to quit adn leave, or had the people tell
> 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?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 05:36:45
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1164046417.120043.279430@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
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 09:55:41
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:6rhsl2hergml12s4c1d2bfhlph89p8gvdl@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:00:43 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> > <nobody@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 Vietnam generation wants to lose this war so badly they will be the
> first Americans to surrender a war they are winning.
We're winning? How do you figure that?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 04:53:56
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
>So, everything else he wrote is correct, yes?<
If you have steer maunure for brains then yes, correctamundo!
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 07:06:38
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
montmach@aol.com wrote:
> multi wrote:
>
> (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.
So, everything else he wrote is correct, yes?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 05:52:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
montmach@aol.com wrote:
> And Ann Coulter is NOT a guy.
And you know this how?
She's a MAN, baby!
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 22:47:28
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
annika1980 wrote:
> montmach@aol.com wrote:
>> And Ann Coulter is NOT a guy.
>
> And you know this how?
>
> She's a MAN, baby!
Post pictures of her genitals and let us vote on it.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 04:54:05
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
multi wrote:
(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.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 08:06:33
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 28 Nov 2006 04:54:05 -0800, montmach@aol.com wrote:
>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.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Nov 2006 04:56:33
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>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 (Sara 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."
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 13:55:12
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164045341.193569.241950@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> the Moderator wrote:
> > "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> > news:6rhsl2hergml12s4c1d2bfhlph89p8gvdl@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.
>
>
> 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.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 07:10:18
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164917831.664459.229340@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > Gee, Mod, now you've really hurt my feelings. I actually read quite a
> > lot about the fighting on the way to Baghdad and, as combat goes, that
> > was not very heavy lifting. You want to know what heavy resistance is
> > like? Read up on Guadalcanal. If what's going on in Iraq today is not
> > worse, in terms of resistance, than the assault on Baghdad, then why
> > haven't US forces been able to shut down the enemy? Or am I quibbling
> > with semantics again? Try to come up with something empirical this time.
>
> If the United States fought the battle of Guadal Canal today, the liberals
> would have us saluting the rising sun and speaking Japanese.
And here I was thinking you'd come back with some inane response.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:17:11
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164903167.570686.307420@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > the Moderator wrote:
> > > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > > news:mccsm2h0h3vhoro5mgbb2b0mqvm2358gm2@4ax.com...
> > > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
> > > > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Do you really think a battle exists that the United States ine
> Corps
> > > > >could not win?
> > > >
> > > > That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
> > > > Afghanistan and Iraq with ine battalions and just sweep all of the
> > > > bad guys away? What a dolt!
> > >
> > > They did that on the way to Baghdad. It is time to do it again. As
> usual
> > > you miss the point completely. The OP said that the ines announced
> they
> > > could not win against the insurgents. Utter nonsense.
> >
> > US forces encountered litte resistance on the way to Baghdad. If it's
> > "time to do it again," then why aren't we doing it? To subdue the
> > various groups that have turned Iraq into hell on
> > earth would take a massive infusion of new troops fighting for several
> > years, cost thousands more American lives and billions more American
> > dollars. And then what? What kind of shape would Iraq be in then, and
> > how long would it take the country to crawl from the wreckage and
> > develop some kind of stable government and society?
> >
> > The OP (me) didn't say the ines "announced" anything. I said they
> > reported to DoD that Anbar Province is a lost cause. If you want to say
> > the ine Corps is invincible, fine, but that's what they said. The
> > utter nonsense is coming mostly from you.
> >
> Obviously you have not read anything about the fighting on the way to
> Baghdad. If you think the resistance is worse now it is only another
> example of your speaking on a subject you know nothing about.
>
> You are famous for quibbling with semantics. The ine Corps did not
> report to the DoD that Anbar was a lost cause. You want them to lose so
> badly you have abandoned the truth.
Gee, Mod, now you've really hurt my feelings. I actually read quite a
lot about the fighting on the way to Baghdad and, as combat goes, that
was not very heavy lifting. You want to know what heavy resistance is
like? Read up on Guadalcanal. If what's going on in Iraq today is not
worse, in terms of resistance, than the assault on Baghdad, then why
haven't US forces been able to shut down the enemy? Or am I quibbling
with semantics again? Try to come up with something empirical this time.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 08:35:43
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164917831.664459.229340@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Gee, Mod, now you've really hurt my feelings. I actually read quite a
> lot about the fighting on the way to Baghdad and, as combat goes, that
> was not very heavy lifting. You want to know what heavy resistance is
> like? Read up on Guadalcanal. If what's going on in Iraq today is not
> worse, in terms of resistance, than the assault on Baghdad, then why
> haven't US forces been able to shut down the enemy? Or am I quibbling
> with semantics again? Try to come up with something empirical this time.
If the United States fought the battle of Guadal Canal today, the liberals
would have us saluting the rising sun and speaking Japanese.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 08:12:47
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:mccsm2h0h3vhoro5mgbb2b0mqvm2358gm2@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Do you really think a battle exists that the United States ine Corps
> > >could not win?
> >
> > That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
> > Afghanistan and Iraq with ine battalions and just sweep all of the
> > bad guys away? What a dolt!
>
> They did that on the way to Baghdad. It is time to do it again. As usual
> you miss the point completely. The OP said that the ines announced they
> could not win against the insurgents. Utter nonsense.
US forces encountered litte resistance on the way to Baghdad. If it's
"time to do it again," then why aren't we doing it? To subdue the
various groups that have turned Iraq into hell on
earth would take a massive infusion of new troops fighting for several
years, cost thousands more American lives and billions more American
dollars. And then what? What kind of shape would Iraq be in then, and
how long would it take the country to crawl from the wreckage and
develop some kind of stable government and society?
The OP (me) didn't say the ines "announced" anything. I said they
reported to DoD that Anbar Province is a lost cause. If you want to say
the ine Corps is invincible, fine, but that's what they said. The
utter nonsense is coming mostly from you.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:30:54
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164903167.570686.307420@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> the Moderator wrote:
> > "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> > news:mccsm2h0h3vhoro5mgbb2b0mqvm2358gm2@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
> > > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Do you really think a battle exists that the United States ine
Corps
> > > >could not win?
> > >
> > > That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
> > > Afghanistan and Iraq with ine battalions and just sweep all of the
> > > bad guys away? What a dolt!
> >
> > They did that on the way to Baghdad. It is time to do it again. As
usual
> > you miss the point completely. The OP said that the ines announced
they
> > could not win against the insurgents. Utter nonsense.
>
> US forces encountered litte resistance on the way to Baghdad. If it's
> "time to do it again," then why aren't we doing it? To subdue the
> various groups that have turned Iraq into hell on
> earth would take a massive infusion of new troops fighting for several
> years, cost thousands more American lives and billions more American
> dollars. And then what? What kind of shape would Iraq be in then, and
> how long would it take the country to crawl from the wreckage and
> develop some kind of stable government and society?
>
> The OP (me) didn't say the ines "announced" anything. I said they
> reported to DoD that Anbar Province is a lost cause. If you want to say
> the ine Corps is invincible, fine, but that's what they said. The
> utter nonsense is coming mostly from you.
>
Obviously you have not read anything about the fighting on the way to
Baghdad. If you think the resistance is worse now it is only another
example of your speaking on a subject you know nothing about.
You are famous for quibbling with semantics. The ine Corps did not
report to the DoD that Anbar was a lost cause. You want them to lose so
badly you have abandoned the truth.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 17:40:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2006 06:42:52 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@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.
>
> 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.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 23:04:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 29 Nov 2006 17:40:16 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>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.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 02:39:25
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 29 Nov 2006 17:40:16 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>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?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 21:57:58
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> 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
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 05:21:39
From:
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
multi <m...@asm.org > wrote:
> I made my disapproval of Hayes pretty clear, and I said nothing about
> everybody else in the world, so your comment is complete crap. =A0It'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!).
> =A0What 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."
=A0 >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. =A0Your 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!
|
| |
Date: 17 Nov 2006 15:36:42
From: multi
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:00:43 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
<nobody@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?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 10:25:15
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164752852.726782.20480@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > The ine 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 ine 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 ine 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."
> *******************
>
> Distorting ines As tyrs
> Leaked Intelligence Report Gives Path To Victory But Portrayed As Defining
> Defeat
> By Steve Schippert
> .
> .
> .
> When ine 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 O al-Baghdadi. One must conclude that, as a responsible
> commander of ines, 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? ines
> are not in the tyrdom 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.
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
|
| | |
Date: 28 Nov 2006 14:27:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:31:42 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:0T3l7j4tIj22N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> >> montmach@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.
> >
> >We haven't lost the war. You are just so anxious to surrender you can't
> >tell the difference.
> >
> Be serious. Even the hawks in the military are admitting that this
> can't be won.
The ine 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 ine 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.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1164752852.726782.20480@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The ine 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 ine 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 ine Corps
could not win?
This is precisely my point. You have surrendered in the face of victory.
*******************
Distorting ines As tyrs
Leaked Intelligence Report Gives Path To Victory But Portrayed As Defining
Defeat
By Steve Schippert
.
.
.
When ine 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 O al-Baghdadi. One must conclude that, as a responsible
commander of ines, 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? ines
are not in the tyrdom 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.
.
.
.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 19:20:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1164752852.726782.20480@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> The ine 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 ine 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 ine Corps
>could not win?
That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
Afghanistan and Iraq with ine battalions and just sweep all of the
bad guys away? What a dolt!
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:44:48
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:mccsm2h0h3vhoro5mgbb2b0mqvm2358gm2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >Do you really think a battle exists that the United States ine Corps
> >could not win?
>
> That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
> Afghanistan and Iraq with ine battalions and just sweep all of the
> bad guys away? What a dolt!
They did that on the way to Baghdad. It is time to do it again. As usual
you miss the point completely. The OP said that the ines announced they
could not win against the insurgents. Utter nonsense.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 01:47:38
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
: On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
: <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
:
: >
: >"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >news:1164752852.726782.20480@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
: >>
: >>
: >> The ine 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 ine 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 ine Corps
: >could not win?
:
: That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
: Afghanistan and Iraq with ine 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.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 20:04:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:47:38 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Bobby Knight <bknight@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 ine Corps
>:>could not win?
>:
>: That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
>: Afghanistan and Iraq with ine 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.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:46:55
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:mtesm2pd7r72kjmm9abs7qto2b1u16gs30@4ax.com...
>
> 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.
>
When has that ever happened?
The Vietnam generation is so anxious to get out of Iraq they will be the
first people in American history to surrender a victory.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:51:40
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:46:55 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:mtesm2pd7r72kjmm9abs7qto2b1u16gs30@4ax.com...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>When has that ever happened?
>
>The Vietnam generation is so anxious to get out of Iraq they will be the
>first people in American history to surrender a victory.
>
The bottom line is that, out of your ass, you stated that there was no
battle that they could possibly lose. A typical hawkish broad-brush
statement....and wrong.
There can be no victory in Iraq, and the military has stated that.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:33:09
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:jdvtm2t7vaol801m00v8s8s0h2tjhvj104@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:46:55 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:mtesm2pd7r72kjmm9abs7qto2b1u16gs30@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >When has that ever happened?
> >
> >The Vietnam generation is so anxious to get out of Iraq they will be the
> >first people in American history to surrender a victory.
> >
> The bottom line is that, out of your ass, you stated that there was no
> battle that they could possibly lose. A typical hawkish broad-brush
> statement....and wrong.
>
> There can be no victory in Iraq, and the military has stated that.
Couldn't come up with an example to prove me wrong, huh?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 20:08:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
the Moderator <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
:
: "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
: news:jdvtm2t7vaol801m00v8s8s0h2tjhvj104@4ax.com...
: > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:46:55 -0600, "the Moderator"
: > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
: > >news:mtesm2pd7r72kjmm9abs7qto2b1u16gs30@4ax.com...
: > >>
: > >> 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.
: > >>
: > >
: > >When has that ever happened?
: > >
: > >The Vietnam generation is so anxious to get out of Iraq they will be the
: > >first people in American history to surrender a victory.
: > >
: > The bottom line is that, out of your ass, you stated that there was no
: > battle that they could possibly lose. A typical hawkish broad-brush
: > statement....and wrong.
: >
: > There can be no victory in Iraq, and the military has stated that.
:
: Couldn't come up with an example to prove me wrong, huh?
Nobody is interested in the place where you moved the goalposts.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 13:27:47
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:33:09 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:jdvtm2t7vaol801m00v8s8s0h2tjhvj104@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:46:55 -0600, "the Moderator"
>> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>> >news:mtesm2pd7r72kjmm9abs7qto2b1u16gs30@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> >When has that ever happened?
>> >
>> >The Vietnam generation is so anxious to get out of Iraq they will be the
>> >first people in American history to surrender a victory.
>> >
>> The bottom line is that, out of your ass, you stated that there was no
>> battle that they could possibly lose. A typical hawkish broad-brush
>> statement....and wrong.
>>
>> There can be no victory in Iraq, and the military has stated that.
>
>Couldn't come up with an example to prove me wrong, huh?
>
Wrong? You're all over the map with wrong, starting with wild
statements like above. Get back when you can make some sense.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 08:36:43
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:r3cum2dvjurlsfkkjphs9su79oihqfqh0k@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:33:09 -0600, "the Moderator"
> >
> Wrong? You're all over the map with wrong, starting with wild
> statements like above. Get back when you can make some sense.
And that would be in lock step with MoveOn.org?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 11:21:46
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 08:36:43 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:r3cum2dvjurlsfkkjphs9su79oihqfqh0k@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:33:09 -0600, "the Moderator"
>> >
>> Wrong? You're all over the map with wrong, starting with wild
>> statements like above. Get back when you can make some sense.
>
>And that would be in lock step with MoveOn.org?
>
No. Your lockstep would be;
www. I-believe-everything-i'm-ordered.edu
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 15:50:05
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:B76dnZLF6cJvYfPYnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> The Vietnam generation is so anxious to get out of Iraq they will be the
> first people in American history to surrender a victory.
If we've won, why would leaving now be a surrender? Sounds
self-contradictory.
Scott
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 03:16:57
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:47:38 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >Bobby Knight <bknight@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 ine Corps
: >:>could not win?
: >:
: >: That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
: >: Afghanistan and Iraq with ine 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.
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 ines against a
similar sized force of any other nation in the world, on
relatively equal logistical footing regarding supply lines,
terrain, etc., and the ines will almost always win.
But even that capability has limits. And even if it didn't --
even if the ines 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 ines do not, cannot, engineer political solutions.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 21:37:38
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:16:57 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net> wrote:
>: On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:47:38 GMT, Chris Bellomy
>: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>:
>:>Bobby Knight <bknight@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 ine Corps
>:>:>could not win?
>:>:
>:>: That is the silliest thing I ever read. If so, then why not load
>:>: Afghanistan and Iraq with ine 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.
>
>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 ines against a
>similar sized force of any other nation in the world, on
>relatively equal logistical footing regarding supply lines,
>terrain, etc., and the ines will almost always win.
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 ines 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 ines 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 ine Corps could not win?"
Of course, under certain conditions. Broad statements are almost
always untrue.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 04:34:43
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> I just can't abide a statement like "Do you really think a battle
> exists that the United States ine Corps could not win?"
> Of course, under certain conditions. Broad statements are almost
> always untrue.
Tactical nukes make such issues meaningless in the most important cases. Forces
like this are only good for such engagements against non nuclear nations. It's
why the US didn't invade Cuba.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:57:01
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:28:38 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>Do you really think a battle exists that the United States ine 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.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 03:42:21
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 28-Nov-2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> The ine 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 ine 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
|
| | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 11:52:00
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:6rhsl2hergml12s4c1d2bfhlph89p8gvdl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:00:43 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> <nobody@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 Vietnam generation wants to lose this war so badly they will be the
first Americans to surrender a war they are winning.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 06:42:52
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2006 16:06:37 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@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.
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
> the US is ahead of the game.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 13:40:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 29 Nov 2006 06:42:52 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@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.
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.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 22:40:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:40:13 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
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?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 09:26:34
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
> You really crack me up. Replacing a malevolent regime with no regime at
> all, but rather a state of chaos, anarchy and horrendous carnage is
> "mission accomplished?" You're even more delusional than Bush.
Remember before the War, when Bush announced that if Saddam gave up his
WMDs, he (Saddam) could remain in power?
Best,
Ken
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 17:47:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 3 Dec 2006 09:26:34 -0800, "Ken Meltzer" <commspkmn@aol.com > wrote:
>Remember before the War, when Bush announced that if Saddam gave up his
>WMDs, he (Saddam) could remain in power?
Apparently politicians don't realize or don't care how valuable it is
to have our country considered trustworthy.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 13:00:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> Apparently politicians don't realize or don't care how valuable it is
> to have our country considered trustworthy.
Today's politicians can barely comprehend Dr. Seuss short stories; let
alone the value of a trustworthy government (see Bushtard) and use
Washington as a tool for illegally making obscene amounts of money. They
spit on the Constitution and on the words of the Founding Fathers on a daily
basis.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants. " -- Thomas Jefferson
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not. " -- Thomas Jefferson
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions
that I wish it to be always kept alive. " -- Thomas Jefferson
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to
gain ground. " -- Thomas Jefferson
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty. " -- Thomas Jefferson
"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in
his conduct. " -- Thomas Jefferson
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it
into tyranny. " -- Thomas Jefferson
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 08:56:00
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:27:11 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Was this war to counter the effects of the sanctions?
>
> The war was to achiever a US policy that goes back to the Clinton
> Administration --- regime change. Mission accomplished.
You really crack me up. Replacing a malevolent regime with no regime at
all, but rather a state of chaos, anarchy and horrendous carnage is
"mission accomplished?" You're even more delusional than Bush.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 19:39:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 3 Dec 2006 08:56:00 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> The war was to achiever a US policy that goes back to the Clinton
>> Administration --- regime change. Mission accomplished.
>
>You really crack me up. Replacing a malevolent regime with no regime at
>all, but rather a state of chaos, anarchy and horrendous carnage is
>"mission accomplished?" You're even more delusional than Bush.
It's not that difficult to understand that an Iraq in total chaos is a
lot less of a threat to the US than an Iraq unified under Saddam. In
a sense, Iraq doesn't exist any more. This is only a US problem as
long as the US stays, but the US can leave any time it wants to. Then
it's an Iraqi problem.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 01:09:01
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:39:28 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>It's not that difficult to understand that an Iraq in total chaos is a
>lot less of a threat to the US than an Iraq unified under Saddam. In
>a sense, Iraq doesn't exist any more. This is only a US problem as
>long as the US stays, but the US can leave any time it wants to. Then
>it's an Iraqi problem.
I don't know that the nation of Iraq was the threat - but various
dissatisfied Righteous rebels - and they haven't gone away.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2006 23:02:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:40:19 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
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.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 17:21:40
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> 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.
Saddam slaughtered thousands of Kurds; bombed Israel, invaded Kuwait,
and went to war with Iran. I am sure any WMD's he had are safe and secure
in Syria right about now.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Dec 2006 17:02:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2006 08:56:00 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The war was to achiever a US policy that goes back to the Clinton
> >> Administration --- regime change. Mission accomplished.
> >
> >You really crack me up. Replacing a malevolent regime with no regime at
> >all, but rather a state of chaos, anarchy and horrendous carnage is
> >"mission accomplished?" You're even more delusional than Bush.
>
>
> It's not that difficult to understand that an Iraq in total chaos is a
> lot less of a threat to the US than an Iraq unified under Saddam. In
> a sense, Iraq doesn't exist any more. This is only a US problem as
> long as the US stays, but the US can leave any time it wants to. Then
> it's an Iraqi problem.
First of all, Iraq was not "unified" under SH. The majority of its
poulation hated him. Second, anyone with a passing acquaintance with
foreign policy understands why an ungoverned Iraq is dangerous to the
Western world -- for the same reason an ungoverned Afghanistan was. And
we have seen the consequence of that.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:56:37
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On 3 Dec 2006 17:02:39 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> It's not that difficult to understand that an Iraq in total chaos is a
>> lot less of a threat to the US than an Iraq unified under Saddam. In
>> a sense, Iraq doesn't exist any more. This is only a US problem as
>> long as the US stays, but the US can leave any time it wants to. Then
>> it's an Iraqi problem.
>
>First of all, Iraq was not "unified" under SH. The majority of its
>poulation hated him. Second, anyone with a passing acquaintance with
>foreign policy understands why an ungoverned Iraq is dangerous to the
>Western world -- for the same reason an ungoverned Afghanistan was. And
>we have seen the consequence of that.
It all depends on what you consider the most serious security risk. If
a rogue state possessing nuclear weapons is the number one risk, then
Iraq under Saddam is more of a threat than an ungoverned Iraq.
So, while Iraq wasn't unified in the sense that all the people loved
Saddam, it was unified in that Saddam controlled all or Iraq's assets
and was dedicated to eventually building nuclear weapons. That threat
no longer exists. The major aim of the war was regime change and that
has been achieved.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 20:05:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:21:40 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>Saddam slaughtered thousands of Kurds; bombed Israel, invaded Kuwait,
>and went to war with Iran. I am sure any WMD's he had are safe and secure
>in Syria right about now.
That's certainly possible. But chemical and biological weapons were
not what the US was afraid of. Saddam's potential to develop nukes
was the threat.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 11:23:37
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:21:40 -0500, "Head Shot"
>> Saddam slaughtered thousands of Kurds; bombed Israel, invaded
>> Kuwait, and went to war with Iran. I am sure any WMD's he had are
>> safe and secure in Syria right about now.
>
>
> That's certainly possible. But chemical and biological weapons were
> not what the US was afraid of. Saddam's potential to develop nukes
> was the threat.
I believe USA just wanted to put a puppet government in an oil producing
state in the hopes that it snowballed through the Arab world over some
period of time. They couldn't "puppet-ize" Iran or Saudi Arabia and keep
Arab sentiment high; so they went after the only secular strongman on the
block. Iraq was all about oil; and was never about WMD's or nukes.
IMHO, of course.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 13:04:34
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:02:54 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>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.
But his potential threat wasn't as immediate as North Korea's. He
didn't even have the nuclear ability as Iran - and obviously his
nuclear arsenal doesn't match Pakistan's.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:15:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:04:34 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>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.
>
>But his potential threat wasn't as immediate as North Korea's. He
>didn't even have the nuclear ability as Iran - and obviously his
>nuclear arsenal doesn't match Pakistan's.
I can't disagree with any of that. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean
that you shouldn't deal with one problem because you have other
problems, or that you can't deal with similar problems in different
ways.
Pakistan, as things stand today, is not a threat. In fact, the
Musharraf regime has been very cooperative in the fight against
Islamic radicals and keeping their nuclear people under control.
Before 9/11 this was not the case. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is
secure. This is not to say that the CIA and NSA people don't worry
about what might happen in Pakistan if radical Islamists were to gain
control, but it's not on the front burner.
North Korea is a major problem, but military action is not a real
option unless things get radically different. A military conflict
could result in a major war engulfing the entire Korean Peninsula with
millions and millions of casualties and the potential for the use of
nuclear weapons on both sides. The strategy for NK has to be
immediate containment and negotiations. However, the situation in NK
should be a warning to the US of how difficult things become once a
nation actually has nuclear weapons.
Accordingly, Iran should never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons
and if it takes military action to stop them, then that option should
be used.
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Nov 2006 19:07:19
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Bush Learns Vietnam Lesson?????
|
In article <V5udnfxY6Z7cdvzYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@centurytel.net >
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>
>
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:6rhsl2hergml12s4c1d2bfhlph89p8gvdl@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:00:43 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> > <nobody@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 Vietnam generation wants to lose this war so badly they will be the
> first Americans to surrender a war they are winning.
Ya, I want to see 3000 dead kids and billions spent just to go down tubes
just so I can say THAT? You are so far off base that you have earned the
title of "dumbest fuck next to bush."
|
|
