Yeah, but he is an idiot none-the-less.

"Thomas Stewart" wrote in message
...
Nutsy,

Anybody that has a degree from Princton, a Masters from Harvard, been
elected governor of the State of Texas, presently the President of the
USA doesn't have to worry about being called a Moron by some one who
considers an ugly broad in a bikini, supposedly making over $300,000/yr
a person to be admired.

As Oz says; "You're Nuts!"

George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.


"Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net...
George Washington must be an idiot then:

http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.



More sarcasm, eh? I assume that you are hinting at Vietnam!


Regards


Donal
--

Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals
are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US
Constitution is antiquated?

I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would
you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much
larger force using feigning tactics?

Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia
Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from
the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you
think they lost?

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
George Washington must be an idiot then:


http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow
small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then
circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled
all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of
his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.

That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my
dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim
countries would only result in greater losses because they
would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As
long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly
vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage"
so I should know.

Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact,
they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact
that probably over 95 percent of the American people
don't think they apply any more.


"Gilligan" wrote in message news
Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals
are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US
Constitution is antiquated?

I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would
you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much
larger force using feigning tactics?

Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia
Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from
the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you
think they lost?

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
George Washington must be an idiot then:


http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow
small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then
circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled
all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of
his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.

Anybody that has a degree from Princton, a Masters from Harvard, been
elected governor of the State of Texas, presently the President of the
USA

Yeah and we all know you can't get any of those things with money and
connections. Bush is REAL smart! The man can't even speak!

Bwahahahahahaha!

RB

That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my
dear man.

Gorilla? Scotty's wife is nearby?

RB

I'll take that as a no.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Is there anybody you're NOT jealous of

Man, what an angry dude!!! Try actually sailing some day!


RB

Bwaawwwaaaah!

I don't think that a guerilla force can be defeated from the outside. It
must be defeated from within. America's great weakness is its lack of "on
the ground" intelligence, which will make defeating the Savages of Islam
very costly. These guys are not like your typical Commie.

The US Constitution is the greatest government document in all of history.
It's concise with no fluff and has a very solid philosophical basis.
Contrast it to the documents of foriegn countries and you'll realize why
they are so inferior.

I assume where you live there's lots of liberals. Out here we have drive
through liquor stores, it's legal to drive with a loaded pistol in the car,
very high or no speed limits, some places it's legal to drink and drive,
it's legal to shoot right in your own yard, there's the famous "make my day
law" where tresspassers can be shot on sight near your house (they don't
even have to be in it) and a good lack of preventative type laws. Needless
to say, the liberals have been run off and our rednecks are the best. Every
morning I awake to the sound of some good American exercising his Second
Amendment Right, hell, I live within several hours drive of atomic bomb
detonation sites, Barry Goldwater's home and John Wayne's birthplace.
There's missle silos all around and B-52's buzzing chickens in the barnyard!
Who, in their right mind, would want to live anywhere else?



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my
dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim
countries would only result in greater losses because they
would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As
long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly
vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage"
so I should know.

Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact,
they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact
that probably over 95 percent of the American people
don't think they apply any more.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian
ideals
are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US
Constitution is antiquated?

I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War.
Would
you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a
much
larger force using feigning tactics?

Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia
Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating
from
the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you
think they lost?

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
George Washington must be an idiot then:



http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in
huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to
allow
small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then
circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have
controlled
all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions
of
his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to
pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take
over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.