"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

There is no reason to believe that we missed an opportunity to do the same
in Iraq, and will never again have a chance. Instead, Bush chose to invade
that country for reasons which are not worth debating here.

Correction: There is EVERY reason to believe...

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong
up for you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much
from our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing
the same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with
the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness,
stupidity, and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I
watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3
and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late
'30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush
administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.
You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded
Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would
patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a
person's deeds are not connected with his reputation?

I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?

And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't
have rusted and corroded?

If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would
be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices,
and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea
might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel.

"Lied us into Iraq?" It appears that the congress, the House and Senate
failed in their duties didn't they. The President doesn't go to war
without congresses consent.

If your crystal ball is so good why are you living in a broken down
house in bum**** Maryland?

Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be
attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter
incompetence of Bush and his administration.

When did history start? Was it January 20, 2001?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up
for you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from
our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the
same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity,
and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I
watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration
and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.
You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he
would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait
for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are
not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?

That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort,
then your intent was wrong?

The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed.

Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own
reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country.

What personal reasons?

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration
and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.

Since you brought up Bush.... caught part of his newsconference from
the ranch yesterday. He didn't look or sound that good.
Too much RnR?

You aren't worth the effort...

basskisser wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for
you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from
our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the
same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and
"Big Oil" and things will become clear.
You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he
would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait
for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are
not connected with his reputation?

Pre-war Iraqi output = more than 2.2 million barrels
In May, 2006 output = 1.1 million barrels. Even Bert should be able to
figure out that yes, BushCo DID help cause our current conditions.


Why are you complaining, Bush has succeeded in reducing our dependence
upon foreign oil by 50% from Iraq.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in
the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on
and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller
than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having
so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.


So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed,
non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up?

All sorts of ideas:

1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups causing
the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you got it in
your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other countries that
have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that sometimes,
stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason for it. This
last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both political parties) who
dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say more about this?

Thanks for your insight General.

2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people,
who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional
enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of
the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig out
of their holes.

Like you buddy Johnson did?

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the
exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also
makes you unfit for the office you hold.

What are you talking about?

4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very
idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging for
happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that they built
a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will cause your
employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not notice how badly
you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old soldiers are interviewed,
they don't sound much different than 16 year olds, in terms of their ability
to put your little war in perspective. Maybe when they're 45, they'll have
some perspective.

You are a pessimistic delusional twit.

5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a new
asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if out of
spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by your war did
the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but throwing their
sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their country club
memberships, it would've been the right thing to do.

Was that before or after we sacrificed the US troops in Saudi Arabia on
Sept. 12?


Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at
all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and
slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism.

Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now. What
the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the rhetoric.


Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we
"enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I
read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We couldn't
ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon technology".
That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than the tense
situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII.

So, you are in favor of using live humans to test our military weaponry?
How nice of you to think so little of human life.

You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids,
because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got
there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about us
into people who think we're animals.

I thought you and your ilk wanted us out of Iraq last month?

Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong
up for you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much
from our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm
hearing the same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about
our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early
1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they
ever learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict
with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness,
stupidity, and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I
watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another
last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in
WW3 and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late
'30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush
administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.
You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded
Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would
patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think
a person's deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines
the effectiveness of a person or a project?

And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't
have rusted and corroded?



If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely
would be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower
prices, and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise,
North Korea might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded
Israel.

Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be
attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter
incompetence of Bush and his administration.

Glad you asked.

And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats
would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and
Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be
happy ever after, Amen.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John


Silly boy. I was discussing acts and reactions for which Bush can be
held strictly accountable. While Bush is responsible for pooching the
federal planning and reaction to Katrina, he didn't cause the storm.
Apples and oranges.

Of course Harry is going to attempt to limit the debate to what thinks
he can win.

DSK wrote:
What can be solved (but I don't know how): That book I mentioned said
that by Reagan's time in office, many of the CIA's most experienced
and creative risk-takers were retired. These were people who started
with the OSS, and pretty much invented tactics that we think are only
appropriate in movies. One of William Casey's frustrations was
finding more people like this.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
That's one point and a good one.

They don't make good spies like they used to. Now they all seem to be
Valerie Palme.

The only thing Valerie Plame did wrong was to disprove some of Vice
President Cheney's pet theories about how to justify starting a war for
profit.

Valarie Plame wasn't in a policy making job she was just an analyst for
the previous five years.

I guess when you put ideology above reality, you are obligated to hate
the guys (and women) who keep pointing out that water really does run
downhill.

If you disagree with the direction your employer, I reiterate employer,
wants to go in you have the ability to quit and say whatever you want.
Whether you have intestinal fortitude to to quit is another issue.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400, Harry Krause

wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong
up for you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much
from our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing
the same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our
war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s,
and
there is still a large percentage of American people who
actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with
the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness,
stupidity, and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I
watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another
last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3
and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late
'30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush
administration and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.
You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded
Iraq, he would have more friends, or at least more people who would
patiently wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a
person's deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?

And, if Pres. Bush had stayed out of Iraq the BP pipeline wouldn't
have rusted and corroded?



If Bush hadn't lied us into Iraq and remained there, there likely would
be more oil on the market, with disruptions of supply, at lower prices,
and Iran wouldn't be so aggressively pursuing our demise, North Korea
might be behaving, and Hezbollah wouldn't have invaded Israel.

Many of the serious problems the world is facing right now can be
attributed to the ignorance, hubris, stupidity, laziness and utter
incompetence of Bush and his administration.

Glad you asked.

And Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have happened and all those charter boats
would be operating and the shrimp boats would be catching shrimp and
Safeway wouldn't be making a fortune on imported shrimp and we'd all be
happy ever after, Amen.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John


Silly boy. I was discussing acts and reactions for which Bush can be held
strictly accountable. While Bush is responsible for pooching the federal
planning and reaction to Katrina, he didn't cause the storm. Apples and
oranges.

Of course Harry is going to attempt to limit the debate to what thinks he
can win.

Are you thinking anyone should seriously entertain an idea as stupid as
"Bush caused the storm"?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq,
he would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently
wait for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's
deeds are not connected with his reputation?
I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?

That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best
effort, then your intent was wrong?

The intent of Johnson's great society was wrong, it failed.

Your conclusion: 100% of the time, when a project fails, the intent was
wrong.

Got it. Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.



Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own
reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country.

What personal reasons?

Nothing you're educated enough to understand.