"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:08:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall our limiting our bombing to points
containing
radar & antiaircraft weaponry, not missions into their cities. Never
mind.
The point was that our goal at that stage was, as you said, the no-fly
zone,
or containment.

We always have some bull**** goal when we bomb brown people, that
doesn't mean it is right
If you read what Europe was saying about us at the time you will see
out intent didn't really match where the bombs were falling.
We seem to have forgotten the French, Italians and Germans had already
left the reservation on Iraq long before GW showed up.
Al Jazerra was showing pictures of dead civilians to the Muslim world.

OK, but we're getting far afield here. Saddam could've been contained
forever, with little or no cost to us. Now, you can be silly and say that
our pounding of his radar installations would do nothing to stop wire
transfers of currency to terrorists, but that's another subject which has
no known end.

Can you put an actual number or range of number on your "little or no cost
to us" assertion.

You can help. How many pilots did we lose during the period when we were
enforcing the no-fly zone?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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.

Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least.


Your president once said he spent a couple of hours per day playing video
games. He also stated that he doesn't read much. That may be appropriate for
some grown men, but not for a president. I am 100% sure that his world view
is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept
of a savior.

Bert Robbins wrote:
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...


You can't dream up an excuse for your exaulted ruler? What kind of yes
man are you?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
.. I am 100% sure that his world view
is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the concept
of a savior.


Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a
"Saviour"?

Harry Krause wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"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.


Why can't you them Doug and we will see if I can read them at least.



Read them? You can't even write a coherent sentence. Go back to high
school, Bertbrain. Try to graduate this time. Joining the marines is not
an excuse for dropping out of high school.

Sad what booze can do.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
. I am 100% sure that his world view
is based on his pastimes, as well as a religion which promotes the
concept
of a savior.


Pardon me, but is there really anything wrong with believing in a
"Saviour"?


No. Not until you begin to believe that YOU are the savior. You, and
soldiers who just happen to be somebody else's children.

Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires
strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do
this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Keep your religion apart from your political decisions. This requires
strength. I can only think of ONE politician who was able to correctly do
this. Sadly, he has returned to private law practice.

If you are saying politican, instead of POTUS,

Don't forget the WWII general
or, the one assasinated in Dallas,
the one buried on his texas ranch.
The one who wasn't a crook.
The one who stumbled getting off a plane

Those are the ones I remember,
Of course, except for Gerald, they're all dead now.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
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.

You forgot arrogant elitist


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?

That is what happens to when one swallows the NYT hook line and sinker.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
DSK wrote:


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.


In a nutshell, DSK defined the problem with liebrals

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
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?

That is all his wife can afford


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?

Harry, as usual, is one presidency off from where the blame lies