Bush needs to clean up his mess

[Leadfoot]

Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's mess?
Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?

What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President will
have to finish Iraq?

If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
2009 then they aren't worth saving.

Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF, trainers.
logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's mess?
>Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?

Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
the picture?
>
>What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President will
>have to finish Iraq?

Sounds like an honest estimation of a major foreign policy task.
>
>If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
>2009 then they aren't worth saving.

Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?
>
>Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
>the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF, trainers.
>logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.

So, you finally make a valid point. Yep, there's going to be a
requirement for engineers, security (as in police), training, military
assistance, etc. Will there be a requirement for traditional combat
arms units? Hopefully not. But that's a couple of years downstream
isn't it?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Leadfoot]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
> wrote:
>
>>Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's
>>mess?
>>Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
>
> Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
> ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
> next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
> the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
> What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
> the picture?

This is a mess that if it is possible to be cleaned up it can be cleaned up
the end of Bush's term. Either the plan that is in place can be completed
by the Iraqi's with Bush's help by 1-19-09 or they won't be able to
accomplish it at all

Just how long were you prepared to fight in Vietnam, Ed? How many coups did
South Vietanam have?

>>
>>What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President
>>will
>>have to finish Iraq?
>
> Sounds like an honest estimation of a major foreign policy task.

It's not cut and run. It's...

Stand up. We can only help so much before we leave.

And yes we should be committed to leave totally. Permanent bases in Iraq
prove Al-queda's point to the average Arab/Muslim.

>>
>>If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
>>2009 then they aren't worth saving.
>
> Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?

NATO was a defense alliance against a nuclear superpower, not a pre-emptive
war based on BULL**** that has been followed by a guerilla war. And NATO
members stood up quite well doing their part. The jury is still out on the
Iraqi's, 80% of who wish we would leave.

Apples and oranges, Ed


>>
>>Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
>>the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF,
>>trainers.
>>logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
>
> So, you finally make a valid point. Yep, there's going to be a
> requirement for engineers, security (as in police), training, military
> assistance, etc. Will there be a requirement for traditional combat
> arms units? Hopefully not. But that's a couple of years downstream
> isn't it?

Exactly 1-19-09 is 944 Days or 133 Weeks and 13 Days or 2 years 4 months
and 3 Weeks or as you said "a couple of years downstream isn't it?"

I'm giving Bush plenty of time to clean up his mess. Maybe you missed that?

I


>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ricardo]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
> wrote:

>>If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
>>2009 then they aren't worth saving.

The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'. Think what happened to the French, at the hands
of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
1940s, when they got their country back!

With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.

> Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?

All which NATO countries?

>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's
>>>mess?
>>>Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
>>
>> Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
>> ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
>> next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
>> the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
>> What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
>> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
>> the picture?
>
>This is a mess that if it is possible to be cleaned up it can be cleaned up
>the end of Bush's term. Either the plan that is in place can be completed
>by the Iraqi's with Bush's help by 1-19-09 or they won't be able to
>accomplish it at all
>
>Just how long were you prepared to fight in Vietnam, Ed? How many coups did
>South Vietanam have?

We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

The main point I'd like to leave you with is that in major
international relations issues the solutions are never simple and a
firm calendar for completion isn't possible.

Number of coups was small during the period of US combat involvement
and those were during the last year or so when Vietnamization was
pretty much completed (late '71--'72.) Actually a case could be made
that it was precisely the withdrawal of American military
stabilization and support which led to belief that the coups could be
successful.
>
>>>
>>>What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President
>>>will
>>>have to finish Iraq?
>>
>> Sounds like an honest estimation of a major foreign policy task.
>
>It's not cut and run. It's...
>
>Stand up. We can only help so much before we leave.
>
>And yes we should be committed to leave totally. Permanent bases in Iraq
>prove Al-queda's point to the average Arab/Muslim.

Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
Increasingly al-Queda's point has been to foment violence between
Muslims rather than against coalition forces.
>
>>>
>>>If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
>>>2009 then they aren't worth saving.
>>
>> Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?
>
>NATO was a defense alliance against a nuclear superpower, not a pre-emptive
>war based on BULL**** that has been followed by a guerilla war. And NATO
>members stood up quite well doing their part. The jury is still out on the
>Iraqi's, 80% of who wish we would leave.

NATO was established in 1949 and if you think that Germany, Belgium,
France, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Turkey were in shape
militarily to defend against the Soviets it would seem that you slept
through a lot of history classes. Reconstruction and the Marshall Plan
were just beginning to show positive impacts.

As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.
>
>Apples and oranges, Ed
>
>>>
>>>Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
>>>the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF,
>>>trainers. >>>logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
>>
>> So, you finally make a valid point. Yep, there's going to be a
>> requirement for engineers, security (as in police), training, military
>> assistance, etc. Will there be a requirement for traditional combat
>> arms units? Hopefully not. But that's a couple of years downstream
>> isn't it?
>
>Exactly 1-19-09 is 944 Days or 133 Weeks and 13 Days or 2 years 4 months
>and 3 Weeks or as you said "a couple of years downstream isn't it?"
>
>I'm giving Bush plenty of time to clean up his mess. Maybe you missed that?

What I commented on was not the length of time but the assertion that
at the end of the current administration there was some sort of
obligation to leave a clean slate for the incoming group--something
which has NEVER before occurred in any presidency.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
>give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
Vietnam successfully attacked.

Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.


This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors:
embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to
become evangelists for "where do we get these men?".


Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

>Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
>indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?

The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the
handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small,
because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an
early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of
place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not
aware of any such being constructed)

>As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
>data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.

They're valid if you include responses like "should leave once the
security situation is stabilised" and other such conditional responses.
Indeed, very few Iraqis indeed want Coalition Forces to remain
indefinitely.

The Iraqis really do want us to leave... but many of them don't want us
to leave _now_, they'd like us to leave "as soon as practical", with a
big spread on what "practical" means.




--
Paul J. Adam

[Leadfoot]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's
>>>>mess?
>>>>Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
>>>
>>> Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
>>> ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
>>> next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
>>> the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
>>> What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
>>> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
>>> the picture?
>>
>>This is a mess that if it is possible to be cleaned up it can be cleaned
>>up
>>the end of Bush's term. Either the plan that is in place can be completed
>>by the Iraqi's with Bush's help by 1-19-09 or they won't be able to
>>accomplish it at all
>>
>>Just how long were you prepared to fight in Vietnam, Ed? How many coups
>>did
>>South Vietanam have?
>
> We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

So we could still be there today, eh?

>
> The main point I'd like to leave you with is that in major
> international relations issues the solutions are never simple and a
> firm calendar for completion isn't possible.

Does it occur to you that if the Iraqi's aren't up to the task by 1-19-09
they never will be?


>
> Number of coups was small during the period of US combat involvement
> and those were during the last year or so when Vietnamization was
> pretty much completed (late '71--'72.) Actually a case could be made
> that it was precisely the withdrawal of American military
> stabilization and support which led to belief that the coups could be
> successful.

I think you might be thinking of Cambodia Thieu was in office until about 9
days before the communist took over. Albeit the results of the election he
won to take office looked pretty crooked to me.

I was thinking more in terms of the Geneva Accords election we were afraid
to let take place because the communist would have probably won it in 56 and
the coups/assasinations that took place in 63-64



>>
>>>>
>>>>What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President
>>>>will
>>>>have to finish Iraq?
>>>
>>> Sounds like an honest estimation of a major foreign policy task.
>>
>>It's not cut and run. It's...
>>
>>Stand up. We can only help so much before we leave.
>>
>>And yes we should be committed to leave totally. Permanent bases in Iraq
>>prove Al-queda's point to the average Arab/Muslim.
>
> Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
> indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
> Increasingly al-Queda's point has been to foment violence between
> Muslims rather than against coalition forces.

They haven't announced they won't. And it's been suggested at the highest
levels to the administration that they do


>>
>>>>
>>>>If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January
>>>>19,
>>>>2009 then they aren't worth saving.
>>>
>>> Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?
>>
>>NATO was a defense alliance against a nuclear superpower, not a
>>pre-emptive
>>war based on BULL**** that has been followed by a guerilla war. And NATO
>>members stood up quite well doing their part. The jury is still out on
>>the
>>Iraqi's, 80% of who wish we would leave.
>
> NATO was established in 1949 and if you think that Germany, Belgium,
> France, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Turkey were in shape
> militarily to defend against the Soviets it would seem that you slept
> through a lot of history classes. Reconstruction and the Marshall Plan
> were just beginning to show positive impacts.

Which came first, Warsaw pact or NATO? I don't think the soviets were in
any shape either. They were just as scared of us as we were of them.


>
> As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
> data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.

Ok let's hear your numbers <VBG>

>>
>>Apples and oranges, Ed
>>
>>>>
>>>>Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office
>>>>if
>>>>the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF,
>>>>trainers. >>>logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
>>>
>>> So, you finally make a valid point. Yep, there's going to be a
>>> requirement for engineers, security (as in police), training, military
>>> assistance, etc. Will there be a requirement for traditional combat
>>> arms units? Hopefully not. But that's a couple of years downstream
>>> isn't it?
>>
>>Exactly 1-19-09 is 944 Days or 133 Weeks and 13 Days or 2 years 4 months
>>and 3 Weeks or as you said "a couple of years downstream isn't it?"
>>
>>I'm giving Bush plenty of time to clean up his mess. Maybe you missed
>>that?
>
> What I commented on was not the length of time but the assertion that
> at the end of the current administration there was some sort of
> obligation to leave a clean slate for the incoming group--something
> which has NEVER before occurred in any presidency.

I think I'm givng him a lot more time than he really needs to be blunt

Hey you playing with the Windows VISTA beta yet?

>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:47:06 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
>and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
>Vietnam successfully attacked.
>
>Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
>case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.

If there is a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq this is it. In both
instances the "pundits" and a substantial portion of the "taste
makers" were able to woo the minions of the Fourth Estate and convince
them, and then many others, that military success was "impossible."
That was a Big Lie, but like many Big Lies, succeeded because it was
so big (a perverse application of the "too big to fail" theory?).

>This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
>media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
>hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
>Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

It might have been Mark Twain who said, "Never pick a fight with
somebody who buys printer's ink by the barrel."

>And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors:
>embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to
>become evangelists for "where do we get these men?".

True.

But you've got to get to the editorial and opinion writers, too.

>Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

>>Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
>>indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
>
>The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the
>handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small,
>because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an
>early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of
>place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not
>aware of any such being constructed)

You crawl before you walk; you walk before you run; you run before you
fly. ;-)

>>As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
>>data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.
>
>They're valid if you include responses like "should leave once the
>security situation is stabilised" and other such conditional responses.
>Indeed, very few Iraqis indeed want Coalition Forces to remain
>indefinitely.

Give me some time and money and I'll produce a poll that says the the
Urth is flat, hollow, and the center of the universe.

>The Iraqis really do want us to leave... but many of them don't want us
>to leave _now_, they'd like us to leave "as soon as practical", with a
>big spread on what "practical" means.

Indeed.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:

>The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
>is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
>French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
>indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
>this as a 'terrorist'.

So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
reprisal?

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

How many did the Germans execute?

If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.

Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
through German occupation.

>Think what happened to the French, at the hands
>of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
>1940s, when they got their country back!
>
>With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
>any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.

Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?

In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
narrow it down further.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's
>>>>>mess?
>>>>>Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
>>>>
>>>> Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
>>>> ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
>>>> next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
>>>> the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
>>>> What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
>>>> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
>>>> the picture?
>>>
>>>This is a mess that if it is possible to be cleaned up it can be cleaned
>>>up
>>>the end of Bush's term. Either the plan that is in place can be completed
>>>by the Iraqi's with Bush's help by 1-19-09 or they won't be able to
>>>accomplish it at all
>>>
>>>Just how long were you prepared to fight in Vietnam, Ed? How many coups
>>>did
>>>South Vietanam have?
>>
>> We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>
>So we could still be there today, eh?

No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
"negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
example.
>
>>
>> The main point I'd like to leave you with is that in major
>> international relations issues the solutions are never simple and a
>> firm calendar for completion isn't possible.
>
>Does it occur to you that if the Iraqi's aren't up to the task by 1-19-09
>they never will be?
>
>
>>
>> Number of coups was small during the period of US combat involvement
>> and those were during the last year or so when Vietnamization was
>> pretty much completed (late '71--'72.) Actually a case could be made
>> that it was precisely the withdrawal of American military
>> stabilization and support which led to belief that the coups could be
>> successful.
>
>I think you might be thinking of Cambodia Thieu was in office until about 9
>days before the communist took over. Albeit the results of the election he
>won to take office looked pretty crooked to me.

I thought you were referring to 1971 when Big Minh attempted to
overthrow the government.

What makes you doubt the election? (Seriously, it is virtually
impossible to compare a US domestic election--with its concommitant
share of doubt--and elections anywhere in the Third World, regardless
of oversight.)
>
>I was thinking more in terms of the Geneva Accords election we were afraid
>to let take place because the communist would have probably won it in 56 and
>the coups/assasinations that took place in 63-64

And, you think the postulated victory of the Viet Minh in '56 would
have been pristine? The Geneva Accords were fairly typical
international diplomatic practice of the period--providing a
US/Eurocentric overlay on a formerly colonial region with disasterous
results.

We used to laugh about the weekly flights of the white ICC airplane
between Saigon, Vientiane and Hanoi carrying the Indian, Canadian,
Pakistani and Swedish observers between the capitals. "You see
anything wrong?" "Nah, not me--looks good from here."
>

>>>>>What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President
>>>>>will
>>>>>have to finish Iraq?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like an honest estimation of a major foreign policy task.
>>>
>>>It's not cut and run. It's...
>>>
>>>Stand up. We can only help so much before we leave.
>>>
>>>And yes we should be committed to leave totally. Permanent bases in Iraq
>>>prove Al-queda's point to the average Arab/Muslim.
>>
>> Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
>> indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
>> Increasingly al-Queda's point has been to foment violence between
>> Muslims rather than against coalition forces.
>
>They haven't announced they won't. And it's been suggested at the highest
>levels to the administration that they do

They haven't announced they won't launch a mission to Venus, but I
suspect they won't. How does not announcing an intent lead you to the
conclusion that someone will? Wishful thinking?

>>>>>If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January
>>>>>19,
>>>>>2009 then they aren't worth saving.
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?
>>>
>>>NATO was a defense alliance against a nuclear superpower, not a
>>>pre-emptive
>>>war based on BULL**** that has been followed by a guerilla war. And NATO
>>>members stood up quite well doing their part. The jury is still out on
>>>the
>>>Iraqi's, 80% of who wish we would leave.
>>
>> NATO was established in 1949 and if you think that Germany, Belgium,
>> France, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Turkey were in shape
>> militarily to defend against the Soviets it would seem that you slept
>> through a lot of history classes. Reconstruction and the Marshall Plan
>> were just beginning to show positive impacts.
>
>Which came first, Warsaw pact or NATO? I don't think the soviets were in
>any shape either. They were just as scared of us as we were of them.

Stalin aggressively developed his international nuclear capability in
the period from 1946 onward. He established and continued to operate
the COMINTERN to train and deploy leaders of Communist revolution. He
maintained a huge military capability--crude, but loads of manpower,
while we largely de-activated the WW II force.

I still remember "duck and cover" drills from second grade. Do you?
>
>
>>
>> As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
>> data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.
>
>Ok let's hear your numbers <VBG>
>
>>>
>>>Apples and oranges, Ed
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office
>>>>>if
>>>>>the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF,
>>>>>trainers. >>>logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
>>>>
>>>> So, you finally make a valid point. Yep, there's going to be a
>>>> requirement for engineers, security (as in police), training, military
>>>> assistance, etc. Will there be a requirement for traditional combat
>>>> arms units? Hopefully not. But that's a couple of years downstream
>>>> isn't it?
>>>
>>>Exactly 1-19-09 is 944 Days or 133 Weeks and 13 Days or 2 years 4 months
>>>and 3 Weeks or as you said "a couple of years downstream isn't it?"
>>>
>>>I'm giving Bush plenty of time to clean up his mess. Maybe you missed
>>>that?
>>
>> What I commented on was not the length of time but the assertion that
>> at the end of the current administration there was some sort of
>> obligation to leave a clean slate for the incoming group--something
>> which has NEVER before occurred in any presidency.
>
>I think I'm givng him a lot more time than he really needs to be blunt

And, I think that it is impossible to define exactly how much time
will be needed for a complicated task. There can be goals, but a fixed
calendar date is impossible.
>
>Hey you playing with the Windows VISTA beta yet?

I've been out of the software reviewing business for about five years
now. Amazingly I haven't had to do a hard drive reformat and full
system reload in all that time--used to be a semi-annual requirement
when I was running an average of 50 new programs a week on the PC.

I've stayed away from VISTA, but been reading eagerly about it. Should
coincide with my rising need for a new system around Jan/Feb of next
year!

Maybe if there's a Palace Cobra royalty check in the new year mail...

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ricardo]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>
>
>>The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
>>is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
>>French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
>>indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
>>this as a 'terrorist'.
>
>
> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
> reprisal?
>
> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
>
> How many did the Germans execute?
>
> If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.
>
> Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
> through German occupation.
>
And you lived through it?

Most recent news on the subject:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13637.htm

>
>>Think what happened to the French, at the hands
>>of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
>>1940s, when they got their country back!
>>
>>With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
>>any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.
>
>
> Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?
>
> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
> narrow it down further.


Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Vince]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's
>>>>>> mess?
>>>>>> Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
>>>>> Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
>>>>> ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
>>>>> next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
>>>>> the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
>>>>> What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
>>>>> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
>>>>> the picture?
>>>> This is a mess that if it is possible to be cleaned up it can be cleaned
>>>> up
>>>> the end of Bush's term. Either the plan that is in place can be completed
>>>> by the Iraqi's with Bush's help by 1-19-09 or they won't be able to
>>>> accomplish it at all
>>>>
>>>> Just how long were you prepared to fight in Vietnam, Ed? How many coups
>>>> did
>>>> South Vietanam have?
>>> We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
>>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>> So we could still be there today, eh?
>
> No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
> "negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
> example.

Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
doesn't wash now. For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
, would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
proxies, the north Vietnamese. Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.

This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.

Vince

Vince

[Alan Lothian]

In article >, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:

> In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > writes
> >We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
> >give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
> >distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>
> In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
> and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
> Vietnam successfully attacked.

Well, yes. It's that "attention deficit" again. Something that US
allies have learned to worry about. For a distressingly long time.


> Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
> case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.

Hmmm. Yes, but. At the risk of pushing this more-than-somewhat OT topic
into an arid wilderness, we are faced with the fait accompli of the
destruction of the liberal arts education in the US and much of the
anglosphere in favour of some kind of bizarre, historically-ignorant,
posturing self-loathing that passes for "the Left". Which has gained
itself a stranglehold, a bit like Russian ivy, all over the bloody
place, especially the meeja.

Me, when I need leftwing guidance, I ask myself what Lenin would have
done. The answer rarely involves gender politics or queer studies, but
tends towards, shall we say, more robust solutions. From which, as the
most liberal and tolerant of men, I am usually obliged to distance
myself. Still, it's always there as a thought.


>
>
> This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
> media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
> hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
> Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

Another "yes, but." The thing I can't forgive the meeja (by which I
mean overwhelmingly tv) is their utter incapacity to avoid telling
lies. Indeed, their complete epistemological inability to tell one from
the other: only what makes "good" tv and what does not. They're quite
smart at that.
From bitter personal experience, I'd never give a tv interview unless
it was live: they will cut you up into what they fancy in the editing
room, every time. Reminds me of the fable of the frog and the scorpion.
Indeed (well, I *was* speaking of Lenin) the most effective
revolutionary act I can think of in 2006 is to blow up every television
transmitter and send ballbearings into reverse Clarke orbit.



> And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors:
> embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to
> become evangelists for "where do we get these men?".

Yes, but. Or, in this instance, perhaps, "but, yet." Embedded
journalists, though, are rarely of the Looneymouth Flakjacket
persuasion, broadcasting with authority in a shirt of many pockets not
too dangerously far from a well-supplied bar. As for tv "journalism":
"Does my bum look big in this?" is its only honest contribution to
anything.

>
> Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

Thankless in success, worse in failure.


rest snipped, all good points with which I more or less entirely agree.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

[Jarg]

"Ricardo" > wrote in message
. uk...
>
>

>
> Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
> just not worth keeping figures!
>
> We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
>
> Ricardo
> --
> "Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
> Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

These statistics are about as plausible as these:
http://www.area51central.com/aliens/abductions/facts.html

And since I found this on the internet it must be true!

Jarg

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
>>>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>>>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>>> So we could still be there today, eh?
>>
>> No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
>> "negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
>> example.
>
>Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
>doesn't wash now.

No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.

>For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
>, would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
>proxies, the north Vietnamese.

And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
(and hence Marxist prone) north. Yet we could have "contained" the
communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
posturing and pacifism at home.

Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
the nation in the long run.

>Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
>were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
>win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.

Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.
>
>This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.

Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
and dealing with them will have been known now.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Vince]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince > wrote:
>
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
>>>>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>>>>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>>>> So we could still be there today, eh?
>>> No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
>>> "negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
>>> example.
>> Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
>> doesn't wash now.
>
> No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
> back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
> had the political will to do so.
>

You need to read up a bit
"The Dolchstoßlegende, (German "dagger-thrust legend", often translated
in English as "stab-in-the-back legend") refers to a social mythos and
persecution-propaganda theory popular in post-World War I Germany, which
claimed a direct link between Germany's defeat with German citizens who
nationalists claimed had sabotaged or otherwise lacked dedication to the
promoted cause of the war —ie. "to unify the German nation."

Der Dolchstoss is cited as a important factor in Adolf Hitler's later
rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base
largely from embittered WWI veterans and those sympathetic with the
Dolchstoss interpretation."

It's precisely on point to your claim that:

IF--repeat IF--the
>>>>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>>>>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

and

We had the military power to impose our will if we
> had the political will to do so.

"Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders began to speak
critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists,
communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion due to their supposed
extra-national loyalties. It was rumored that they had not supported the
war and had played a role in selling-out Germany to its enemies. These
November Criminals, or those who seemed to benefit from the newly formed
Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the
home front, by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism,
instigating unrest and strikes in the critical military industries or
profiteering. In essence the accusation was that the accused committed
treason against the "benevolent and righteous" common cause."

"Other wars have been viewed as winnable but lost due to some sort of
homefront betrayal. For example, some believe this had happened to the
United States during the Vietnam War. However, some believe that the
so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" is also a myth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende

>> For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
>> , would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
>> proxies, the north Vietnamese.
>
> And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
> agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
> (and hence Marxist prone) north.

It was not able to fucntion at all, and in both countries the majority
of the population were farmers.


Yet we could have "contained" the
> communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
> posturing and pacifism at home.

Ah yes, more dolchstoss

The official birth of the term itself possibly can be dated to mid 1919,
when Ludendorff was having lunch with a British general Sir Neil
Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany
lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses: The home
front failed us etc. Then, Sir Neil Malcolm said that "it sounds like
you were stabbed in the back then?" The phrase was to Ludendorff's
liking and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the
'official' version, then disseminated throughout German society. This
was picked up by right wing political factions and used as a form of
attack against the hated Weimar regime, who were the exponents of the
German Revolution.

great excuse when you've lost a war.


>
> Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
> life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
> minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
> for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
> the nation in the long run.
>


Like avoiding 50,000 plus dead Americans?

>> Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
>> were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
>> win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.
>
> Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
> wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.
>> This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.
>
> Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
> this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
> that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
> and dealing with them will have been known now.
>

I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. I recall talking
to French paratroopers who had been at Dien Ben Phu. The duplicity of
the US government, the a lack of a meaningful game plan for
Vietnamization , The corruption of the south Vietnamese government , the
over estimation of the effect of bombing, the reduction in quality of
the conscript infantry and the political problem of bombing the North
and risking Russian nuclear attack were matters of daily conversation.
I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.

[Ricardo]

Jarg wrote:
> "Ricardo" > wrote in message
> . uk...
>
>>
>
>>Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
>>just not worth keeping figures!
>>
>>We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
>>
>>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
>>
>>Ricardo
>>--
>>"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
>>Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."
>
>
> These statistics are about as plausible as these:
> http://www.area51central.com/aliens/abductions/facts.html
>
> And since I found this on the internet it must be true!
>
> Jarg
>
>

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:05:17 -0400, Vince > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince > wrote:
>>
>>> Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
>>> doesn't wash now.
>>
>> No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
>> back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
>> had the political will to do so.
>>
>
>You need to read up a bit
>"The Dolchstoßlegende, (German "dagger-thrust legend", often translated
>in English as "stab-in-the-back legend") refers to a social mythos and
>persecution-propaganda theory popular in post-World War I Germany, which
>claimed a direct link between Germany's defeat with German citizens who
>nationalists claimed had sabotaged or otherwise lacked dedication to the
>promoted cause of the war —ie. "to unify the German nation."
>
>Der Dolchstoss is cited as a important factor in Adolf Hitler's later
>rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base
>largely from embittered WWI veterans and those sympathetic with the
>Dolchstoss interpretation."

It sounds like you found a term and are dedicated to making it apply.
The conspiracy theory for Germany doesn't hold much water for WW I or
II and it doesn't get traction for the US experience in SEA.
>
>It's precisely on point to your claim that:
>
>IF--repeat IF--the
> >>>>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
> >>>>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>
>and
>
>We had the military power to impose our will if we
> > had the political will to do so.
>
>"Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders began to speak
>critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists,
>communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion due to their supposed
>extra-national loyalties. It was rumored that they had not supported the
>war and had played a role in selling-out Germany to its enemies. These
>November Criminals, or those who seemed to benefit from the newly formed
>Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the
>home front, by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism,
>instigating unrest and strikes in the critical military industries or
>profiteering. In essence the accusation was that the accused committed
>treason against the "benevolent and righteous" common cause."
>
>"Other wars have been viewed as winnable but lost due to some sort of
>homefront betrayal. For example, some believe this had happened to the
>United States during the Vietnam War. However, some believe that the
>so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" is also a myth."
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende

"Some believe" is a load of crap. There's been a lot of work written
since 1975 to describe what went right and what went wrong. Much has
been written by politicians on the scene (i.e. Kissinger, McNamara,
etc.) and much be military historians. A lot of research has been done
by political analysts in universities on both the pro and con sides of
the war. (For that matter, there's been a lot of first-person
participant writing on the topic--even I wrote two published books on
the air war.)

Not many proponents except possibly on the fringe who suspect some
sort of conspiracy or betrayal. It goes a lot deeper than that.
>
>>> For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
>>> , would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
>>> proxies, the north Vietnamese.
>>
>> And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
>> agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
>> (and hence Marxist prone) north.
>
>It was not able to fucntion at all, and in both countries the majority
>of the population were farmers.

You probably didn't get the view of Hanoi, Haiphong, Thai Nguyen, Cam
Pha, Viet Tri, Pho Tho, and other urban areas that I did.
>
>
> Yet we could have "contained" the
>> communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
>> posturing and pacifism at home.
>
>Ah yes, more dolchstoss

None of the sort. Politicians seldom transcend the base selfishness of
the re-election motive. One need only examine the tax structure of the
US and the redistribution schemes of the IRS to see proof of catering
to the majority of the electorate. Welfare sells for votes and
anti-war is always more convenient than combat in terms of popular
appeal.
>
>The official birth of the term itself possibly can be dated to mid 1919,
>when Ludendorff was having lunch with a British general Sir Neil
>Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany
>lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses: The home
>front failed us etc. Then, Sir Neil Malcolm said that "it sounds like
>you were stabbed in the back then?" The phrase was to Ludendorff's
>liking and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the
>'official' version, then disseminated throughout German society. This
>was picked up by right wing political factions and used as a form of
>attack against the hated Weimar regime, who were the exponents of the
>German Revolution.
>
>great excuse when you've lost a war.

A fairly anecdotal and arguably revisionist view of the seeds of
Nazism. One might look at the reparations of Versaille as a more
concrete causative factor.
>
>
>>
>> Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
>> life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
>> minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
>> for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
>> the nation in the long run.
>
>Like avoiding 50,000 plus dead Americans?

The number is a bit over 58,000, but why quibble. Better for the
nation would be winning conflicts decisively as quickly as possible.
Better for the nation is doing what needs to be done before the nation
suffers another terrorist attack of the magnitude of 9/11. Better for
the nation is a stable Middle East (rather than an abandoned one under
control of the jihadists.)
>
>>> Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
>>> were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
>>> win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.
>>
>> Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
>> wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.
>>> This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.
>>
>> Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
>> this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
>> that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
>> and dealing with them will have been known now.
>>
>
>I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War.

Passing through town or with a job relevant to the policy-making
process?

> I recall talking
>to French paratroopers who had been at Dien Ben Phu.

Most every officer I knew had read Bernard Fall. "Street Without Joy"
has more relevance than "Hell in a Very Small Place." I've seen Dien
Bien Phu. It's a poor site for a defensive battle--inaccessible,
surrounded by high ground and supportable only by air. The French must
have read George Custer's tactics manual.

> The duplicity of
>the US government,

Eisenhower provided logistic, but not military support to the French.
He accepted the Geneva Accords. Kennedy had more Laos on his plate
than Vietnam. LBJ, unfortunately was saddled with McNamara and might
have been duplicitious. Nixon initiated Vietnamization and wrapped up
the treaty that got us out and got the POWs returned. At the same time
he opened up trade and relations with the PRC.

> the a lack of a meaningful game plan for
>Vietnamization ,

The term was coined by Nixon in 1968. We were four years (more
actually) into it by then. In his first term he brought troop levels
down from half a million to about 65K in the summer of 1972. What
wasn't "meaningful" about that game plan?

>The corruption of the south Vietnamese government , the
>over estimation of the effect of bombing,

I suspect I've got a more immediate estimation of the effect of
bombing on N. Vietnam than you, unless you were some sort of child
protege in your position inside the beltway.

> the reduction in quality of
>the conscript infantry and the political problem of bombing the North
>and risking Russian nuclear attack were matters of daily conversation.

The draft reflected the increasing lack of education, morality,
ethics, integrity, and self-sacrifice of the population at large.

The "political problem of bombing the North" apparently was pretty
minimal. We did it from 1964 to 1968, intermittently from 69-71 and
then resumed it with impunity in '72.

>I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
>well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.
>
It seemed to work for you. I served with a large number of "rich,
well-born" and decidedly "able" folks in combat.

That canard about who went to war and who went to the Guard has been
discussed at length in R.A.M. Flying single seat, single engine
tactical jets for 4.5 years trumps driving a fishing boat upriver for
six months and then calling everyone you served with a war criminal in
the balance of most of the folks I deal with.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ricardo]

Jarg wrote:
> "Ricardo" > wrote in message
> . uk...
>
>>
>
>>Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
>>just not worth keeping figures!
>>
>>We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
>>
>>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
>>
>>Ricardo
>>--
>>"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
>>Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."
>
>
> These statistics are about as plausible as these:
> http://www.area51central.com/aliens/abductions/facts.html
>
> And since I found this on the internet it must be true!
>
> Jarg
>
>
Not necessarily, but that is only one source of many making exactly the
same allegations, including national and international news networks.
Your belief in 'alien abduction' is entirely up to you, but it is
probably a better bet for survival than a CIA abduction, even if you are
totally innocent.

Once the killing machine starts, manned by people who regard all races
other than their own as 'inferior', it is very difficult to stop. The
many and varied comments about 'ragheads', 'towelheads' and they're all
'terrorists' on these American dominated newsgroups gives an interesting
insight into the national psyche - as is the abuse hurled at anyone who
doesn't support the American war on a poor hapless people who don't
deserve what is happening to them. Further, there is the worrying
inability to understand that if you invade someone else's country, on
whatever pretext, the inhabitants thereof are going to get ****y about it!

It was my understanding that America had a 'Republican' government, yet
following the thread with regard to well reported actions of certain
American marines, many posters would have us believe that their actions
are entirely the fault of a group called 'Democrats'. Very strange.

Unfortunately it is becoming universal - the UK's ruling party, having
been in power for nearly 10 years, claim every problem is the fault of
their predecessors.

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:

>
>
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
>>>is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
>>>French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
>>>indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
>>>this as a 'terrorist'.
>>
>>
>> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
>> reprisal?
>>
>> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
>>
>> How many did the Germans execute?
>>
>> If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.
>>
>> Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
>> through German occupation.
>>
>And you lived through it?

So now you have to live through something to comment on it?

You're not living in Iraq.

>> Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?
>>
>> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
>> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
>> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
>> narrow it down further.
>
>
>Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
>just not worth keeping figures!
>
>We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
>
>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
to narrow it down with any real confidence.

Just because you found it two years later doesn't make it recent news kid.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:59:05 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:

>Not necessarily, but that is only one source of many making exactly the
>same allegations,

One source of many? You keep people who keep quoting each other; that doesn't
make them "many sources".

[Fred J. McCall]

Ricardo > wrote:

:Johnny Bravo wrote:
:> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
:>
:>
:>>The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
:>>is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
:>>French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
:>>indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
:>>this as a 'terrorist'.
:>
:>
:> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
:> reprisal?
:>
:> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
:>
:> How many did the Germans execute?
:>
:> If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.
:>
:> Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
:> through German occupation.
:
:And you lived through it?

Reading not your strong suit? Where id he say that?

:Most recent news on the subject:
:
:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13637.htm

That's nice. You'll notice that we arrest them and try them when we
catch them at it. Three, seven million, no big difference to you,
right?

:>>Think what happened to the French, at the hands
:>>of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
:>>1940s, when they got their country back!
:>>
:>>With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
:>>any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.
:>
:> Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?
:>
:> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
:> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
:> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
:> narrow it down further.
:
:Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
:just not worth keeping figures!

Oh, sorry, you're a European - you can't count past 3 so there's no
difference in the numbers to you.

:We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
:
:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

The same bull****, which even The Lancet says are unfounded and
preposterously large numbers.

How's your German?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[John P. Mullen]

Leadfoot wrote:

> Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's mess?
> Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
>
> What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President will
> have to finish Iraq?
>
> If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
> 2009 then they aren't worth saving.
>
> Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
> the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF, trainers.
> logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bush has several reasons.

First of all, there is a perception that in times of war, people are
more likely to vote Republican.

Second of all, he knows that the mission cannot possibly be completed,
so Rove will have a hard time spinning the line that a Republican
President didn't lose a war.

Most of all, by leaving US forces in Iraq, Rove can blame the Democrats,
who are likely to have a President in 2008.

John Mullen

[Fred J. McCall]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

:No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
:back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
:had the political will to do so.

The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
as long as required.

It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
did anything more.

Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.

--
"Most people don't realize it, but ninety percent of morality is based
on comfort. Incinerate hundreds of people from thirty thousand feet
up and you'll sleep like a baby afterward. Kill one person with a
bayonet and your dreams will never be sweet again."
-- John Rain, "Rain Storm"

[Fred J. McCall]

Vince > wrote:

:I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. ...

Yes. And so you know more than the folks who were there doing the
fighting. Or so you think.

:I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
:well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.

Yes, well everyone wasn't like you, Vinnie. I find it funny that you
hate George Bush and try to smear him with claims that he 'dodged the
draft' by going in the National Guard, while at the same time you love
Clinton and make statements like the preceding.

Feh!

--
"Der Fiege droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Vince]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Vince > wrote:
>
> :I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. ...
>
> Yes. And so you know more than the folks who were there doing the
> fighting. Or so you think.

If the issue is what the world political view was, yes. Being a fireman
give you lots of insights into fighting fires, but is not the same as
understanding an arsonist.


>
> :I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
> :well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.
>
> Yes, well everyone wasn't like you, Vinnie. I find it funny that you
> hate George Bush and try to smear him with claims that he 'dodged the
> draft' by going in the National Guard, while at the same time you love
> Clinton and make statements like the preceding.
>

Clinton was a draft dodger, Bush served honorably , but in such a way as
to minimize his exposure to any real combat. Gore did the same. Kerry
was actually in combat, but may have exaggerated his accomplishments.

I had and have the deepest respect for the grunts who were at the broken
bottle end of a stupid pointless war. Despite your sneering abuse it is
entirely possible to combine respect for American fighting men and women
and oppose the pointless wars Idiot politicians send them to.

Vince

[Vince]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> :No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
> :back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
> :had the political will to do so.
>
> The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
> which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
> as long as required.
>
> It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
> little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
> did anything more.
>
> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
>

Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked
nuclear war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the
million men in 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.

Vince

[Leadfoot]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's
>>>>>>mess?
>>>>>>Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
>>>>> ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
>>>>> next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
>>>>> the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
>>>>> What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
>>>>> Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
>>>>> the picture?
>>>>
>>>>This is a mess that if it is possible to be cleaned up it can be cleaned
>>>>up
>>>>the end of Bush's term. Either the plan that is in place can be
>>>>completed
>>>>by the Iraqi's with Bush's help by 1-19-09 or they won't be able to
>>>>accomplish it at all
>>>>
>>>>Just how long were you prepared to fight in Vietnam, Ed? How many coups
>>>>did
>>>>South Vietanam have?
>>>
>>> We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
>>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>>
>>So we could still be there today, eh?
>
> No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
> "negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
> example.
>>
>>>
>>> The main point I'd like to leave you with is that in major
>>> international relations issues the solutions are never simple and a
>>> firm calendar for completion isn't possible.
>>

Does it occur to you that if the Iraqi's aren't up to the task by 1-19-09
they never will be?

I reposted the above. You can't tell me that you weren't ever involved in a
project that from the outside looked doable but once you were in you
realized it was doomed for failure.

I hope we don't start hearing jokes like...

Want to buy a Iraqi AK47? Never been fired and only dropped once.

>>
>>
>>>
>>> Number of coups was small during the period of US combat involvement
>>> and those were during the last year or so when Vietnamization was
>>> pretty much completed (late '71--'72.) Actually a case could be made
>>> that it was precisely the withdrawal of American military
>>> stabilization and support which led to belief that the coups could be
>>> successful.
>>
>>I think you might be thinking of Cambodia Thieu was in office until about
>>9
>>days before the communist took over. Albeit the results of the election he
>>won to take office looked pretty crooked to me.
>
> I thought you were referring to 1971 when Big Minh attempted to
> overthrow the government.

Right wing dictatorships are no better than communist dictatorships when you
get down to it.

>
> What makes you doubt the election? (Seriously, it is virtually
> impossible to compare a US domestic election--with its concommitant
> share of doubt--and elections anywhere in the Third World, regardless
> of oversight.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam#Leaders_of_the_Republic_of_Vietnam

Scroll down to "politics"




>>
>>I was thinking more in terms of the Geneva Accords election we were afraid
>>to let take place because the communist would have probably won it in 56
>>and
>>the coups/assasinations that took place in 63-64
>
> And, you think the postulated victory of the Viet Minh in '56 would
> have been pristine? The Geneva Accords were fairly typical
> international diplomatic practice of the period--providing a
> US/Eurocentric overlay on a formerly colonial region with disasterous
> results.

You should have watched the last two episodes of Battlestar Galactica. They
portrayed how stupid the voters could be and the lengths that those who
think the voters are stupid would go to. And in the real world I shudder to
think what will result if the countries of the Muslim world have free
elections. I don't think the results would be best for the US. Yet I still
think they should be held.

There's another episode of BSG called "Scar". It's a prettty good
perspective of life as a fighter pilot.



>
> We used to laugh about the weekly flights of the white ICC airplane
> between Saigon, Vientiane and Hanoi carrying the Indian, Canadian,
> Pakistani and Swedish observers between the capitals. "You see
> anything wrong?" "Nah, not me--looks good from here."
>>
>
>>>>>>What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President
>>>>>>will
>>>>>>have to finish Iraq?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like an honest estimation of a major foreign policy task.
>>>>
>>>>It's not cut and run. It's...
>>>>
>>>>Stand up. We can only help so much before we leave.
>>>>
>>>>And yes we should be committed to leave totally. Permanent bases in
>>>>Iraq
>>>>prove Al-queda's point to the average Arab/Muslim.
>>>
>>> Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
>>> indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
>>> Increasingly al-Queda's point has been to foment violence between
>>> Muslims rather than against coalition forces.
>>
>>They haven't announced they won't. And it's been suggested at the highest
>>levels to the administration that they do
>
> They haven't announced they won't launch a mission to Venus, but I
> suspect they won't. How does not announcing an intent lead you to the
> conclusion that someone will? Wishful thinking?
>
>>>>>>If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January
>>>>>>19,
>>>>>>2009 then they aren't worth saving.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?
>>>>
>>>>NATO was a defense alliance against a nuclear superpower, not a
>>>>pre-emptive
>>>>war based on BULL**** that has been followed by a guerilla war. And
>>>>NATO
>>>>members stood up quite well doing their part. The jury is still out on
>>>>the
>>>>Iraqi's, 80% of who wish we would leave.
>>>
>>> NATO was established in 1949 and if you think that Germany, Belgium,
>>> France, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Greece and Turkey were in shape
>>> militarily to defend against the Soviets it would seem that you slept
>>> through a lot of history classes. Reconstruction and the Marshall Plan
>>> were just beginning to show positive impacts.
>>
>>Which came first, Warsaw pact or NATO? I don't think the soviets were in
>>any shape either. They were just as scared of us as we were of them.
>
> Stalin aggressively developed his international nuclear capability in
> the period from 1946 onward. He established and continued to operate
> the COMINTERN to train and deploy leaders of Communist revolution. He
> maintained a huge military capability--crude, but loads of manpower,
> while we largely de-activated the WW II force.
>
> I still remember "duck and cover" drills from second grade. Do you?

ROTFLMAO second grade for me started at Offutt AFB and ended at Grand Forks
AFB, SAC HQ and Grand Forks with its B-52 Bomb Group and 300 Minutemen silos
were numero uno as nuclear targets. Neither school district even bothered
with it



>>
>>
>>>
>>> As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
>>> data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.
>>
>>Ok let's hear your numbers <VBG>


Still waiting for your numbers


>>
>>>>
>>>>Apples and oranges, Ed
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office
>>>>>>if
>>>>>>the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF,
>>>>>>trainers. >>>logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you finally make a valid point. Yep, there's going to be a
>>>>> requirement for engineers, security (as in police), training, military
>>>>> assistance, etc. Will there be a requirement for traditional combat
>>>>> arms units? Hopefully not. But that's a couple of years downstream
>>>>> isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>Exactly 1-19-09 is 944 Days or 133 Weeks and 13 Days or 2 years 4
>>>>months
>>>>and 3 Weeks or as you said "a couple of years downstream isn't it?"
>>>>
>>>>I'm giving Bush plenty of time to clean up his mess. Maybe you missed
>>>>that?
>>>
>>> What I commented on was not the length of time but the assertion that
>>> at the end of the current administration there was some sort of
>>> obligation to leave a clean slate for the incoming group--something
>>> which has NEVER before occurred in any presidency.
>>
>>I think I'm givng him a lot more time than he really needs to be blunt
>
> And, I think that it is impossible to define exactly how much time
> will be needed for a complicated task. There can be goals, but a fixed
> calendar date is impossible.

I heven't even seen a roadmap with goals yet


>>
>>Hey you playing with the Windows VISTA beta yet?
>
> I've been out of the software reviewing business for about five years
> now. Amazingly I haven't had to do a hard drive reformat and full
> system reload in all that time--used to be a semi-annual requirement
> when I was running an average of 50 new programs a week on the PC.

I've done a couple but my computer is home built and I'm always playing with
it. I have 4 hard drives and dual boot from the motherboard. I made sure
not to do anything to mess with my primary OS WinXP MCE2005 by keeping it on
a separate hard drive unlike some fools I keep reading about I've also got
the Office beta and that I like. Office seems ready for prime time but
Vista will probably slip again. I'd say wiat at least 6 months until after
it comes out retail before the average user should buy it

>
> I've stayed away from VISTA, but been reading eagerly about it. Should
> coincide with my rising need for a new system around Jan/Feb of next
> year!
>
> Maybe if there's a Palace Cobra royalty check in the new year mail...

Your not a millionaire yet??? Or are too many cheapskates checking it out
at the library

The Vista beta is free although I would definitely keep it on a separate
hard drive from a primary OS


>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Leadfoot]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:05:17 -0400, Vince > wrote:
>
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and
>>>> it
>>>> doesn't wash now.
>>>
>>> No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
>>> back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
>>> had the political will to do so.
>>>
>>
>>You need to read up a bit
>>"The Dolchstoßlegende, (German "dagger-thrust legend", often translated
>>in English as "stab-in-the-back legend") refers to a social mythos and
>>persecution-propaganda theory popular in post-World War I Germany, which
>>claimed a direct link between Germany's defeat with German citizens who
>>nationalists claimed had sabotaged or otherwise lacked dedication to the
>>promoted cause of the war -ie. "to unify the German nation."
>>
>>Der Dolchstoss is cited as a important factor in Adolf Hitler's later
>>rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base
>>largely from embittered WWI veterans and those sympathetic with the
>>Dolchstoss interpretation."
>
> It sounds like you found a term and are dedicated to making it apply.
> The conspiracy theory for Germany doesn't hold much water for WW I or
> II and it doesn't get traction for the US experience in SEA.
>>
>>It's precisely on point to your claim that:
>>
>>IF--repeat IF--the
>> >>>>> give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
>> >>>>> distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
>>
>>and
>>
>>We had the military power to impose our will if we
>> > had the political will to do so.
>>
>>"Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders began to speak
>>critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists,
>>communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion due to their supposed
>>extra-national loyalties. It was rumored that they had not supported the
>>war and had played a role in selling-out Germany to its enemies. These
>>November Criminals, or those who seemed to benefit from the newly formed
>>Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the
>>home front, by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism,
>>instigating unrest and strikes in the critical military industries or
>>profiteering. In essence the accusation was that the accused committed
>>treason against the "benevolent and righteous" common cause."
>>
>>"Other wars have been viewed as winnable but lost due to some sort of
>>homefront betrayal. For example, some believe this had happened to the
>>United States during the Vietnam War. However, some believe that the
>>so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" is also a myth."
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende
>
> "Some believe" is a load of crap. There's been a lot of work written
> since 1975 to describe what went right and what went wrong. Much has
> been written by politicians on the scene (i.e. Kissinger, McNamara,
> etc.) and much be military historians. A lot of research has been done
> by political analysts in universities on both the pro and con sides of
> the war. (For that matter, there's been a lot of first-person
> participant writing on the topic--even I wrote two published books on
> the air war.)
>
> Not many proponents except possibly on the fringe who suspect some
> sort of conspiracy or betrayal. It goes a lot deeper than that.
>>
>>>> For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
>>>> , would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
>>>> proxies, the north Vietnamese.
>>>
>>> And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
>>> agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
>>> (and hence Marxist prone) north.
>>
>>It was not able to fucntion at all, and in both countries the majority
>>of the population were farmers.
>
> You probably didn't get the view of Hanoi, Haiphong, Thai Nguyen, Cam
> Pha, Viet Tri, Pho Tho, and other urban areas that I did.
>>
>>
>> Yet we could have "contained" the
>>> communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
>>> posturing and pacifism at home.
>>
>>Ah yes, more dolchstoss
>
> None of the sort. Politicians seldom transcend the base selfishness of
> the re-election motive. One need only examine the tax structure of the
> US and the redistribution schemes of the IRS to see proof of catering
> to the majority of the electorate. Welfare sells for votes


I think lately it's been bribing the voter with tax cuts

My take on taxes is short and sweet

Taxes = Budget


and
> anti-war is always more convenient than combat in terms of popular
> appeal.


Bush got elected by a lot of sheep


>>
>>The official birth of the term itself possibly can be dated to mid 1919,
>>when Ludendorff was having lunch with a British general Sir Neil
>>Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany
>>lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses: The home
>>front failed us etc. Then, Sir Neil Malcolm said that "it sounds like
>>you were stabbed in the back then?" The phrase was to Ludendorff's
>>liking and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the
>>'official' version, then disseminated throughout German society. This
>>was picked up by right wing political factions and used as a form of
>>attack against the hated Weimar regime, who were the exponents of the
>>German Revolution.
>>
>>great excuse when you've lost a war.
>
> A fairly anecdotal and arguably revisionist view of the seeds of
> Nazism. One might look at the reparations of Versaille as a more
> concrete causative factor.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
>>> life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
>>> minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
>>> for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
>>> the nation in the long run.
>>
>>Like avoiding 50,000 plus dead Americans?
>
> The number is a bit over 58,000, but why quibble. Better for the
> nation would be winning conflicts decisively as quickly as possible.
> Better for the nation is doing what needs to be done before the nation
> suffers another terrorist attack of the magnitude of 9/11. Better for
> the nation is a stable Middle East (rather than an abandoned one under
> control of the jihadists.)

How many muslims hated us enough to want to kill before March 2003 How many
hate us enough to kill us today?

I'm sure the latter is higher.


>>
>>>> Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
>>>> were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
>>>> win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to
>>>> fight.
>>>
>>> Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
>>> wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.
>>>> This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.
>>>
>>> Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
>>> this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
>>> that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
>>> and dealing with them will have been known now.
>>>
>>
>>I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War.
>
> Passing through town or with a job relevant to the policy-making
> process?
>
>> I recall talking
>>to French paratroopers who had been at Dien Ben Phu.
>
> Most every officer I knew had read Bernard Fall. "Street Without Joy"
> has more relevance than "Hell in a Very Small Place." I've seen Dien
> Bien Phu. It's a poor site for a defensive battle--inaccessible,
> surrounded by high ground and supportable only by air. The French must
> have read George Custer's tactics manual.
>
>> The duplicity of
>>the US government,
>
> Eisenhower provided logistic, but not military support to the French.
> He accepted the Geneva Accords. Kennedy had more Laos on his plate
> than Vietnam. LBJ, unfortunately was saddled with McNamara and might
> have been duplicitious. Nixon initiated Vietnamization and wrapped up
> the treaty that got us out and got the POWs returned. At the same time
> he opened up trade and relations with the PRC.
>
>> the a lack of a meaningful game plan for
>>Vietnamization ,
>
> The term was coined by Nixon in 1968. We were four years (more
> actually) into it by then. In his first term he brought troop levels
> down from half a million to about 65K in the summer of 1972. What
> wasn't "meaningful" about that game plan?
>
>>The corruption of the south Vietnamese government , the
>>over estimation of the effect of bombing,
>
> I suspect I've got a more immediate estimation of the effect of
> bombing on N. Vietnam than you, unless you were some sort of child
> protege in your position inside the beltway.
>
>> the reduction in quality of
>>the conscript infantry and the political problem of bombing the North
>>and risking Russian nuclear attack were matters of daily conversation.
>
> The draft reflected the increasing lack of education, morality,
> ethics, integrity, and self-sacrifice of the population at large.
>
> The "political problem of bombing the North" apparently was pretty
> minimal. We did it from 1964 to 1968, intermittently from 69-71 and
> then resumed it with impunity in '72.
>
>>I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
>>well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.
>>
> It seemed to work for you. I served with a large number of "rich,
> well-born" and decidedly "able" folks in combat.
>
> That canard about who went to war and who went to the Guard has been
> discussed at length in R.A.M. Flying single seat, single engine
> tactical jets for 4.5 years

And not getting shot at and it being unlikely you will all through daddy's
help

trumps driving a fishing boat upriver for
> six months

and having Bullets whistle by your ear and dealing with the the people we
were fighting for up close and personal.


and then calling everyone you served with a war criminal in
> the balance of most of the folks I deal with.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Leadfoot]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> Vince > wrote:
>
> :I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. ...
>
> Yes. And so you know more than the folks who were there doing the
> fighting. Or so you think.
>
> :I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
> :well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.
>
> Yes, well everyone wasn't like you, Vinnie. I find it funny that you
> hate George Bush and try to smear him with claims that he 'dodged the
> draft' by going in the National Guard, while at the same time you love
> Clinton and make statements like the preceding.

Your saying the "rich, well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles
and rice paddies" isn't true?


>
> Feh!
>
> --
> "Der Fiege droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
> --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Leadfoot]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>
> :No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
> :back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
> :had the political will to do so.
>
> The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
> which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
> as long as required.
>
> It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
> little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
> did anything more.
>
> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.

And Red China jumps in to protect NVN with World War III starting shortly
thereafter.

A true Military genius you are.


> --
> "Most people don't realize it, but ninety percent of morality is based
> on comfort. Incinerate hundreds of people from thirty thousand feet
> up and you'll sleep like a baby afterward. Kill one person with a
> bayonet and your dreams will never be sweet again."
> -- John Rain, "Rain Storm"

[Ricardo]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
>>>>is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
>>>>French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
>>>>indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
>>>>this as a 'terrorist'.
>>>
>>>
>>> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
>>>reprisal?
>>>
>>> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
>>>
>>> How many did the Germans execute?
>>>
>>> If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.
>>>
>>> Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
>>>through German occupation.
>>>
>>
>>And you lived through it?
>
>
> So now you have to live through something to comment on it?
>
> You're not living in Iraq.
>
>
>>> Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?
>>>
>>> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
>>>in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
>>>somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
>>>narrow it down further.
>>
>>
>>Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
>>just not worth keeping figures!
>>
>>We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
>>
>>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
>
>
> I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
> have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
> question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
> sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
> to narrow it down with any real confidence.
>
> Just because you found it two years later doesn't make it recent news kid.
>
>
And as you may have noticed the killing hasn't stopped...

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 03:45:01 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

>>>>
>>>> The main point I'd like to leave you with is that in major
>>>> international relations issues the solutions are never simple and a
>>>> firm calendar for completion isn't possible.
>>>
>
>Does it occur to you that if the Iraqi's aren't up to the task by 1-19-09
>they never will be?
>
>I reposted the above. You can't tell me that you weren't ever involved in a
>project that from the outside looked doable but once you were in you
>realized it was doomed for failure.
>
> I hope we don't start hearing jokes like...
>
>Want to buy a Iraqi AK47? Never been fired and only dropped once.

I think the 2009 date is well within the realm of possibilty. Been
reading the last few days about some serious draw-down in combat arms
folks starting by the end of this year and ramping up in '07. What the
rate will be, what the numbers will be and whether or not the Iraqi
security forces will be practically or only theoretically viable
remains to be seen.

But, your specific date is tough to accept. When I was on the Board of
Trustees of the library district in Colo. Springs, we grappled with
what age to provide full adult access at--the establishment, as many
fundamentalist religious types wanted, of a fixed age (like 18 years
old) is impractical. Is someone a child at 17 years/364 days and then
suddenly mature the next morning? End result of that debate was that
it was parental responsibility, not the library district's.
>
>>>> Number of coups was small during the period of US combat involvement
>>>> and those were during the last year or so when Vietnamization was
>>>> pretty much completed (late '71--'72.) Actually a case could be made
>>>> that it was precisely the withdrawal of American military
>>>> stabilization and support which led to belief that the coups could be
>>>> successful.
>>>
>>>I think you might be thinking of Cambodia Thieu was in office until about
>>>9
>>>days before the communist took over. Albeit the results of the election he
>>>won to take office looked pretty crooked to me.
>>
>> I thought you were referring to 1971 when Big Minh attempted to
>> overthrow the government.
>
>Right wing dictatorships are no better than communist dictatorships when you
>get down to it.

That is the fundamental problem of the Truman Doctrine and George F.
Kennan's policy of "containment." When you adopt a policy of resisting
communism anywhere in the world, you find yourself allied with a lot
of unsavory fascists.
>

>> And, you think the postulated victory of the Viet Minh in '56 would
>> have been pristine? The Geneva Accords were fairly typical
>> international diplomatic practice of the period--providing a
>> US/Eurocentric overlay on a formerly colonial region with disasterous
>> results.
>
>You should have watched the last two episodes of Battlestar Galactica. They
>portrayed how stupid the voters could be and the lengths that those who
>think the voters are stupid would go to. And in the real world I shudder to
>think what will result if the countries of the Muslim world have free
>elections. I don't think the results would be best for the US. Yet I still
>think they should be held.
>
>There's another episode of BSG called "Scar". It's a prettty good
>perspective of life as a fighter pilot.

Why would I want to watch that? It might endanger all of those
stereotypes I've nurtured for so many years. ;-)))
>
>> I still remember "duck and cover" drills from second grade. Do you?
>
>ROTFLMAO second grade for me started at Offutt AFB and ended at Grand Forks
>AFB, SAC HQ and Grand Forks with its B-52 Bomb Group and 300 Minutemen silos
>were numero uno as nuclear targets. Neither school district even bothered
>with it

I was in Our Lady of Victory Catholic School in Chicago and the
Sisters of St. Francis probably didn't have the geo-political insights
of Curt LeMay at the time.
>
>>>> As for "80% of who(m) wish we would leave"--I've not seen any polling
>>>> data of Iraqi's that would offer those numbers.
>>>
>>>Ok let's hear your numbers <VBG>
>
>Still waiting for your numbers

No numbers forthcoming. My point is that accurate polling in Iraq is
not going on. There is a bit of anecdotal opinionizing by the main
stream media, but no one is taking scientific polls that have any
reliability or validity.
>
>>>>
>>>> What I commented on was not the length of time but the assertion that
>>>> at the end of the current administration there was some sort of
>>>> obligation to leave a clean slate for the incoming group--something
>>>> which has NEVER before occurred in any presidency.
>>>
>>>I think I'm givng him a lot more time than he really needs to be blunt
>>
>> And, I think that it is impossible to define exactly how much time
>> will be needed for a complicated task. There can be goals, but a fixed
>> calendar date is impossible.
>
>I heven't even seen a roadmap with goals yet

We probably don't get invited to the Pentagon, the State Dept, or
CENTCOM staff meetings as much as we should these days.
>
>>
>> I've stayed away from VISTA, but been reading eagerly about it. Should
>> coincide with my rising need for a new system around Jan/Feb of next
>> year!
>>
>> Maybe if there's a Palace Cobra royalty check in the new year mail...
>
>Your not a millionaire yet??? Or are too many cheapskates checking it out
>at the library

Wanna be a millionaire? Don't write non-fiction books (unless you've
got textbook university franchise!). You can do better for hourly wage
rate at the local McBurger-Wend-Bell-Sonic.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ricardo]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Ricardo > wrote:
>
> :Johnny Bravo wrote:
> :> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :>>The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
> :>>is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
> :>>French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
> :>>indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
> :>>this as a 'terrorist'.
> :>
> :>
> :> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
> :> reprisal?
> :>
> :> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
> :>
> :> How many did the Germans execute?
> :>
> :> If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.
> :>
> :> Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
> :> through German occupation.
> :
> :And you lived through it?
>
> Reading not your strong suit? Where id he say that?
>
He didn't, I just wanted to know his viewpoint. After all the Germans
were in Paris long before America was forced into WW2 by the Japanese.

> :Most recent news on the subject:
> :
> :http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13637.htm
>
> That's nice. You'll notice that we arrest them and try them when we
> catch them at it. Three, seven million, no big difference to you,
> right?
>
> :>>Think what happened to the French, at the hands
> :>>of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
> :>>1940s, when they got their country back!
> :>>
> :>>With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
> :>>any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.
> :>
> :> Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?
> :>
> :> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
> :> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
> :> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
> :> narrow it down further.
> :
> :Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
> :just not worth keeping figures!
>
> Oh, sorry, you're a European - you can't count past 3 so there's no
> difference in the numbers to you.
>
> :We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
> :
> :http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
>
> The same bull****, which even The Lancet says are unfounded and
> preposterously large numbers.
>
> How's your German?
>
I'm not sure of the relevance of that comment but my German is probably
better than yours, as is my English, Spanish and French, although I've
not lived in France.

And as for counting past 3, well...it is precisely why I said that we
were two years on from the death 'estimates' of 2004, and, let's face
it, the killing hasn't stopped in that time. The problem with being able
to count seems to rest with the US military who are unable to say how
many civilians they have killed. 'Estimates vary'.

Just for the record, the BBC news in England have, in the last 24 hours,
reported yet more arrests of US military personnel, this time for murder
and abduction of a disabled Iraqi civilian, plus the planting of a
weapon on his body following his murder. Obviously, they are innocent
until proved guilty...

I bet, however, that they don't end up in a cosy American run Cuban
concentration camp for four years with no charges made against them.

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

[Vince]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> I was in Our Lady of Victory Catholic School in Chicago and the
> Sisters of St. Francis probably didn't have the geo-political insights
> of Curt LeMay at the time.

Finally something on topic

Given that Our Lady of Victory (festem BMV de victoria) was titled to
celebrate crushing Islamic forces in a naval battle (Lepanto)

she has always been called on to justify crushing some other group, that
presumably did not have the "in" that those invoking her presumed.

When I was in elementary school at Our Lady of Lourdes I wrote an essay
about sailors disputing as to whether "our lady of victory" or "our
lady queen of peace" would show up in response to their prayers.

I was a heretic from way back


Vince

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:01:50 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>> Yes, well everyone wasn't like you, Vinnie. I find it funny that you
>> hate George Bush and try to smear him with claims that he 'dodged the
>> draft' by going in the National Guard, while at the same time you love
>> Clinton and make statements like the preceding.
>
>Your saying the "rich, well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles
>and rice paddies" isn't true?

John Kerry didn't. George Bush did. Both were from wealthy families.
So the picture is not exactly "clear."

I got my wings in July, '69. I completed the multi-engine syllabus at
NAS Corpus and was assigned to a VS squadron. I'd guess that a maybe
half of my class and squadron mates were where they were because of
moral or ethical problems with our S.E. Asia adventure. I personally
know of two who later went to West Coast VS squadrons and flew Market
Time. So they were willing to follow orders, they just didn't
volunteer. Some may consider that some form of dishonor, I don't.

I am personally aquainted with several peers who were children of
fairly wealthy families who got drafted and went. I know of one who
did the "chicken run" to Canada. I know one who got into the Guard
(probably due to family influence). Again, the picture is quite
mixed.

Most conflicts have some elements of being "a rich man's war and poor
man's fight."

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:04:46 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:


> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
>> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
>
>And Red China jumps in to protect NVN with World War III starting shortly
>thereafter.
>
>A true Military genius you are.

Both you and Vince presume that Russia and China would have acted on
their threat. From recent history we know that the Russians were as
rattled by the Cuban Missle Crisis as we were. Not sure about the
Chinese (Mao made some pretty remarkable statements about China's
ability to sustain casualties in a nuclear war.

We should also remember that Chinese nuclear capability in the
mid-'60s was not the same as Russian capability during the same time
period.

You also seem to forget that in '59 the Sino-Soviet Split happened and
Chinese influence in S.E. Asia was not near what Russian was.

While playing "brinksmanship" is not something you want to do on a
daily basis drawing a "line in the sand" sometimes is necessary. And
there is an odds on chance that if we had done it then the Russians
would have backed down, as they did not have the naval power to
prevent us from doing what we could do, and the Chinese were not about
to help the Russians (and the Vietnamese were never all that
comfortable with the Chinese).

Again, the picture is not nearly as clear as you paint it.

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[~^ beancounter ~^]

Clintion policies led Bush into the 9/11 mess....



John P. Mullen wrote:
> Leadfoot wrote:
>
> > Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's mess?
> > Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
> >
> > What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President will
> > have to finish Iraq?
> >
> > If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
> > 2009 then they aren't worth saving.
> >
> > Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
> > the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF, trainers.
> > logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Bush has several reasons.
>
> First of all, there is a perception that in times of war, people are
> more likely to vote Republican.
>
> Second of all, he knows that the mission cannot possibly be completed,
> so Rove will have a hard time spinning the line that a Republican
> President didn't lose a war.
>
> Most of all, by leaving US forces in Iraq, Rove can blame the Democrats,
> who are likely to have a President in 2008.
>
> John Mullen

[Robert]

"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
>> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
>>
>
> Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
> war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
> 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.
>

You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.

View it as the war after Korea.
Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.

That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
an actual shooting war with China, again.

[Fred J. McCall]

"John P. Mullen" > wrote:

:Leadfoot wrote:
:
:> Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's mess?
:> Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
:>
:> What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President will
:> have to finish Iraq?
:>
:> If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
:> 2009 then they aren't worth saving.
:>
:> Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
:> the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF, trainers.
:> logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.
:
:Bush has several reasons.
:
:First of all, there is a perception that in times of war, people are
:more likely to vote Republican.
:
:Second of all, he knows that the mission cannot possibly be completed,
:so Rove will have a hard time spinning the line that a Republican
:President didn't lose a war.
:
:Most of all, by leaving US forces in Iraq, Rove can blame the Democrats,
:who are likely to have a President in 2008.

To the Lefty Loon, EVERYTHING is about politics. That's why it's so
hard for them to win. The rest of us care about the issues, not their
phony political posturing.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[Fred J. McCall]

Vince > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
:>
:> :No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
:> :back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
:> :had the political will to do so.
:>
:> The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
:> which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
:> as long as required.
:>
:> It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
:> little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
:> did anything more.
:>
:> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
:> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:
:Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked
:nuclear war if we did that.

They weren't in a position to want to start such a war. Just follow
standard procedure under international law and declare North Vietnam
as blockaded and sink anything going in or out.

:Not to mention That we didn't have the
:million men in 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.

If we'd been serious about winning we could have gotten them.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Fred J. McCall]

"Leadfoot" > wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
:>
:> :No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
:> :back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
:> :had the political will to do so.
:>
:> The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
:> which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
:> as long as required.
:>
:> It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
:> little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
:> did anything more.
:>
:> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
:> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:
:And Red China jumps in to protect NVN with World War III starting shortly
:thereafter.

Hogwash. That would never happen. Look at a map. All we'd have to
do is promise to stop at Hanoi.

:A true Military genius you are.

Brighter than you, apparently. Your strategy seems to amount to doing
what we already know failed.

--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks
that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has
nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more
important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature,
and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the
exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:35:38 -0700, "Robert" > wrote:

>
>"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
>>> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
>>>
>>
>> Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
>> war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
>> 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.
>>
>
>You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.
>
>View it as the war after Korea.
>Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
>large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.
>
>That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
>an actual shooting war with China, again.
>
>
First, let me suggest that you edit more carefully--my name at the top
of this has nothing to do with either of the quotes you've retained. I
said neither.

Then, review Korea. The Korean war was a UN action. The Security
Council voted to deploy UN forces (not USA) and that was to maintain
the integrity of the south from a manifest invasion. Fixed,
conventional military forces, not revolutionaries. You are correct
that the Chinese intervened when it was apparent that their proxies
could not get the job done.

Note that the intervention was NOT nuclear. Note that the Soviets were
NOT involved either.

Now, review the relationship between Vietnam and China. Vietnam was
and is NOT a friend of China. There was NOT an invasion (until well
into 1968) and the war was not a conventional fixed piece, traditional
front sort of conflict. The US forces did not move N. of the 17th
parallel and weren't anywhere near the Chinese border, even if China
were a supporter of NVN.

Much different situation than Korea.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Fred J. McCall]

Ricardo > wrote:

:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Ricardo > wrote:
:>
:> :Johnny Bravo wrote:
:> :> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
:> :>
:> :>
:> :>>The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
:> :>>is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
:> :>>French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
:> :>>indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
:> :>>this as a 'terrorist'.
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
:> :> reprisal?
:> :>
:> :> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
:> :>
:> :> How many did the Germans execute?
:> :>
:> :> If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.
:> :>
:> :> Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
:> :> through German occupation.
:> :
:> :And you lived through it?
:>
:> Reading not your strong suit? Where id he say that?
:
:He didn't, I just wanted to know his viewpoint. After all the Germans
:were in Paris long before America was forced into WW2 by the Japanese.

I see. Just more rhetorical bull****.

Son, you're not even a GOOD troll....

:> :Most recent news on the subject:
:> :
:> :http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13637.htm
:>
:> That's nice. You'll notice that we arrest them and try them when we
:> catch them at it. Three, seven million, no big difference to you,
:> right?
:>
:> :>>Think what happened to the French, at the hands
:> :>>of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
:> :>>1940s, when they got their country back!
:> :>>
:> :>>With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
:> :>>any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.
:> :>
:> :> Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?
:> :>
:> :> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
:> :> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
:> :> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
:> :> narrow it down further.
:> :
:> :Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
:> :just not worth keeping figures!
:>
:> Oh, sorry, you're a European - you can't count past 3 so there's no
:> difference in the numbers to you.
:>
:> :We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
:> :
:> :http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
:>
:> The same bull****, which even The Lancet says are unfounded and
:> preposterously large numbers.
:>
:> How's your German?
:
:I'm not sure of the relevance of that comment but my German is probably
:better than yours,

Don't bet on it.

:as is my English,

Don't bet on it.

:Spanish and French, although I've
:not lived in France.

Hard to believe. You make 'surrender monkey' sorts of sounds, after
all.

:And as for counting past 3, well...it is precisely why I said that we
:were two years on from the death 'estimates' of 2004, and, let's face
:it, the killing hasn't stopped in that time. The problem with being able
:to count seems to rest with the US military who are unable to say how
:many civilians they have killed. 'Estimates vary'.

Quite true. Of course, you're too stupid to recognize that the
problem is that with two sides in a firefight it is:

1) difficult to tell if a body is 'civilian' or not, and
2) difficult to know which side got them killed...

.... particularly when the locals have been known to lie about this.

:Just for the record, the BBC news in England have, in the last 24 hours,
:reported yet more arrests of US military personnel, this time for murder
:and abduction of a disabled Iraqi civilian, plus the planting of a
:weapon on his body following his murder. Obviously, they are innocent
:until proved guilty...

The BBC is slow. I'll simply point out once again that we ARREST them
when we find them, so your bull**** is still only that ... bull****.

:I bet, however, that they don't end up in a cosy American run Cuban
:concentration camp for four years with no charges made against them.

I bet they don't, too, because

1) There are no 'concentration camps' in Cuba. It's only dumb****s
like you who don't know what 'concentration camp' means who think so.

2) If guilty, they'll wind up tried and convicted and in the military
prison in Leavenworth (if they don't draw a death penalty, which is
pretty unlikely in a military court).

3) They're being held in a military brig here in the States, with
conditions probably worse than those in Cuba.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[[email protected]]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> ...
>
> >Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
> >indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
>
> The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the
> handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small,
> because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an
> early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of
> place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not
> aware of any such being constructed)
>

Personally, I expect the Kurds would be happy to have a nice big
premanent American base right up by the Turkish border. Off-hand
I would have no objections either.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

On 23 Jun 2006 10:40:36 -0700, wrote:

>This may be opening a can or worms but when we (mostly)
>left Vietnam we HAD won. There was a treaty in place
>recognizing a South Vietnamese 'line of control' if not
>complete sovreignity.

South Vietnam was snuffed out by an armored assault that could have
been planned by Erwin Romel. It was a blatant violation of a treaty
obligation. We ignored it.

Just like we ignored the genocide in Cambodia.

So much for "never again!", eh? :-(

>> Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
>> indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
>
>I haven't heard one way or the other, have you?

The chances of permant bases in Iraq are comparable to those of a
snowball on a Bagdad streecorner at noon in July.

Besides, we don't need them.

>But I don't recall any previous time when what was presented as a
>quick campaign became a six year plus war.

While the ACW and WWI were not six years long,they were planned as
"quick campaigns." WWII did go about six years and it, too, was
planned as a "short, victorious war" by its instigators. Many
aphorisms come to mind on that type of plan.

>Now that we are comitted in Iraq we can make the situation even
>worse than it is now by a hasty withdrawal. But the fact is that
>Iraqis will fight us as long as we are there. We have to leave in
>order to win.

Some will fight us, others will help us. The picture is not clear.

I sometimes get pessimistic about an ultimate success because of what
I heard from a educated Afghani on the radio a few mornings back. He
was very enthusiastic about "liberty" for Afghanistan, but insisted it
be "Islamic liberty." He was highly critical of "Western liberty."
This is discouraging because "liberty" is liberty. It means what it
says. As soon as you attach an adjective you don't have "liberty"
anymore. I'm not sure what you do have, but I know what you don't
have.

It's gonna be a while before the Fat Lady sings, here.


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

[[email protected]]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>
> >The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
> >is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
> >French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
> >indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
> >this as a 'terrorist'.
>
> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
> reprisal?
>
> If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined. At present the accusation stands
around 27, with three of those deaths being prosecuted and the
other 24 still under invstigation.

Plus there were the two prioners beaten to death in Bagram
prison in Afghanistan. Men convicted for contributing to those
murders have been fined, reduced in rank and returned to duty.
This stands in stark contrast to the vigorous prosecutions of
persons involved in lesser crimes at Abu Ghraib which shows
that the sentence a man recieves is more influenced by the
publicity surrounding the crime than by its severity.

We're a whole lot better than Nazis, but less than perfect and
if we forget that, we'll become a whole lot more like the
Nazis.

> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
> narrow it down further.

Since you are not familiar with statistics, let me explain
a bit here, though an actuary or an epidemiologist coudl
explain better.

The Lancet study used the methods of epidemiology, the
statistical study of illness and death to test the hypothesis
that mortality in Iraq had imporved after the invasion.

The study addressed overall mortality without regard to cause of
death. It was not an estimate of deaths from direct US action.

Some of the data were gathered by interviews with persons to
determine date of death of immediate family members. This
may lead to overstimates due to exagerration, a tendency for
people to remember such events as being more recent
than the really are, and multiple counting of deaths of persons
with close ties to two or more families.

OTOH, it was considered to be too dangerous to conduct interviews
in some areas, those were assumed to have the same mortality
rates and the safer surrounding areas. That tends to underestimate
mortality.

The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
in a similar period before the invasion. Thus the conclusion, was
that the hypothesis was false, with better than 95% confidence.

I do not remember the median value exactly, it was around 100,000.
That implies a 50% confidence that the excess deaths were less
than 100,000 and simultaneously 50% confidence that they were
greater.

It is important to keep in mind that it is not possible for statistics
to answer a question. Statistics can only tell us the probablity
that a given answer is correct.

A lot of people don't like that, but that's just tough ****.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:35:38 -0700, "Robert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Vince" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> >>> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
> >>> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
> >> war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
> >> 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.
> >>
> >
> >You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.
> >
> >View it as the war after Korea.
> >Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
> >large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.
> >
> >That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
> >an actual shooting war with China, again.
> >
> >
> First, let me suggest that you edit more carefully--my name at the top
> of this has nothing to do with either of the quotes you've retained. I
> said neither.

The '>>>' in the left margin make it clear as to whom wrote what.
SOME newsreaders are prone to misinterpreting plain text as
formatting instructions which may oscure that.

>
> Then, review Korea. The Korean war was a UN action. The Security
> Council voted to deploy UN forces (not USA) and that was to maintain
> the integrity of the south from a manifest invasion. Fixed,
> conventional military forces, not revolutionaries. You are correct
> that the Chinese intervened when it was apparent that their proxies
> could not get the job done.
>
> Note that the intervention was NOT nuclear. Note that the Soviets were
> NOT involved either.

Who made the MIGs flown by the Communists in Korea?

The Soviets would have vetoed UN action in Korea had
they not walked out on the Security Council. That's a
mistake (assuming it was a mistake) they have yet to repeat.

>
> Now, review the relationship between Vietnam and China. Vietnam was
> and is NOT a friend of China. There was NOT an invasion (until well
> into 1968) and the war was not a conventional fixed piece, traditional
> front sort of conflict. The US forces did not move N. of the 17th
> parallel and weren't anywhere near the Chinese border, even if China
> were a supporter of NVN.
>
> Much different situation than Korea.

Also Korea was a Penninsula, the communists could not spread
the war to neighboring countries like they did in IndoChina.

But to what degree was Vietnam different precisely because we
adopted a different strategy against the North?

--

FF

[Leadfoot]

"~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Clintion policies led Bush into the 9/11 mess....

When was Clinton suppose to invade Afghansitan?

[Robert]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>>
>> >The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
>> >is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
>> >French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
>> >indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
>> >this as a 'terrorist'.
>>
>> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot
>> in
>> reprisal?
>>
>> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
>
> That has yet to be determined. At present the accusation stands
> around 27, with three of those deaths being prosecuted and the
> other 24 still under invstigation.

You are either being willfully ignorant to due to your idiology, or you're
having a reading comprehension problem there.

What you seem to over look is "according to policy". If those 27 were
'according to policy" there woudln't be _ANY_ investigation. Just buisness
as normal.

> We're a whole lot better than Nazis, but less than perfect and
> if we forget that, we'll become a whole lot more like the
> Nazis.

And Canadian peace keepers in Aftrica, and UN peace keepers in africa, etc.
No one is claming the troops are perfect. Whet they are claming is that
there isn't an institutal sweep-it-under-the-rug behavior - unlike the UN.

[John P. Mullen]

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:

> Clintion policies led Bush into the 9/11 mess....
>
>
>

If you say so.

John Mullen

[Johnny Bravo]

On 23 Jun 2006 10:05:57 -0700, wrote:

>
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> >
>> >We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
>> >
>> >http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
>>
>> I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
>> have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
>> question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
>> sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
>> to narrow it down with any real confidence.
>>
>
>Unwilling to commit fraud because there is no statistically valid way
>to 'narrow' down the results.

Untrue. It could have been accomplished with a larger sample size.

>The conclusion was that the mortality rate was determined, at a
>confidence level of 95%, to be higher post-invasion than pre-invasion.

That wasn't the conclusion at all. Between diverting food and medicine funds
to build more palaces, starting wars with his neighbors and using chemical
weapons on his own people; Saddam was easily killing 50,000 or more of his own
people every single year in addition to all other causes

[Johnny Bravo]

On 23 Jun 2006 11:16:02 -0700, wrote:

>
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
>>
>> >The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
>> >is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
>> >French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
>> >indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
>> >this as a 'terrorist'.
>>
>> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
>> reprisal?
>>
>> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
>
>That has yet to be determined.

"According to policy"

Care to cite the official policy of the US military to round up civilians and
have them executed in reprisals for attacks on US troops?

Take all the screens you need, I'll wait.

>> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
>> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
>> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
>> narrow it down further.
>
>Since you are not familiar with statistics,

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

>OTOH, it was considered to be too dangerous to conduct interviews
>in some areas, those were assumed to have the same mortality
>rates and the safer surrounding areas. That tends to underestimate
>mortality.

That's another unwarranted assumption on your part, just because it might have
been dangerous for interviewers doesn't mean that more people died there.

>The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
>They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
>in a similar period before the invasion.

I'm well aware of that and so is everyone else, thanks though.

>I do not remember the median value exactly, it was around 100,000.
>That implies a 50% confidence that the excess deaths were less
>than 100,000 and simultaneously 50% confidence that they were
>greater.

100,000 plus or minus 94,000, they have a guess with such a large margin that
it is all but meaningless. If a doctor tells you that you have between 12 and
18 months to live you can do something useful with that information. If the
doctor tells you that you have between 6 months and 22 years to live; that's all
but useless information to you.

[[email protected]]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2006 11:16:02 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
> >> >is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
> >> >French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
> >> >indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
> >> >this as a 'terrorist'.
> >>
> >> So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
> >> reprisal?
> >>
> >> If you answered none, you'd be correct.
> >
> >That has yet to be determined.
>
> "According to policy"
>
> Care to cite the official policy of the US military to round up civilians and
> have them executed in reprisals for attacks on US troops?

You are correct, there is, as of yet, no evidence that the shootings in
Ieraq were according to policy. Nor do I expect any to be forthcoming.
I do believe that the murders of Dilawar and Habibulah in Bagram prison
were according to the policy of, or at best a consequence of the
willfull ignorance of the base commander. the light sentences for
those
convicted are telling.

LIght sentences for persons convicted of beating chained
prisoners to death is not a good policy.

>
> Take all the screens you need, I'll wait.
>
> >> In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
> >> in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
> >> somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
> >> narrow it down further.
> >
> >Since you are not familiar with statistics,
>
> That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

I was giving you the benefit of doubt. Someone who is familiar with
statistics, who makes a statement such as yours above, would not
be writing honestly.

>
> >OTOH, it was considered to be too dangerous to conduct interviews
> >in some areas, those were assumed to have the same mortality
> >rates and the safer surrounding areas. That tends to underestimate
> >mortality.
>
> That's another unwarranted assumption on your part, just because it might have
> been dangerous for interviewers doesn't mean that more people died there.

I agree that it is an assumption. I disagree that it is unwarranted.

>
> >The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
> >They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
> >in a similar period before the invasion.
>
> I'm well aware of that and so is everyone else, thanks though.

Regardless, a number of OTHER persons make the false claim
that the study shows that the US has killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq.

>
> >I do not remember the median value exactly, it was around 100,000.
> >That implies a 50% confidence that the excess deaths were less
> >than 100,000 and simultaneously 50% confidence that they were
> >greater.
>
> 100,000 plus or minus 94,000, they have a guess with such a large margin that
> it is all but meaningless.

Again, a person who understands statistics knows that 'guessing'
is not involved. Whether you are being honest or not is left as
an exercise for the reader.

> If a doctor tells you that you have between 12 and
> 18 months to live you can do something useful with that information. If the
> doctor tells you that you have between 6 months and 22 years to live; that's all
> but useless information to you.

I disagree.

I presume that you have no disagreement with the other meaningful
comments you edited out.

I also note that you did not insert any indicator of where and how
you edited my remarks before replying...

--

FF

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Lothian
> writes
>In article >, Paul J. Adam
> wrote:
>> In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
>> and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
>> Vietnam successfully attacked.
>
>Well, yes. It's that "attention deficit" again. Something that US
>allies have learned to worry about. For a distressingly long time.

(Sorry for the delayed response, Alan, been having fun up in the
Minches)

To give them credit, when you convince the US public, they can get very
determined, but when El Presidente makes a decision without getting his
country behind him... it goes about as badly as when we try it.

>> Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
>> case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.
>
>Hmmm. Yes, but.

I never said "better" - one risk is a little too much MacArthuresque
"never fear, Mr President, those cowardly commies will _never_ dare
to... well, who'd'a'thunk it?" - but most certainly different. Once a
_Dolchstoss_ myth takes hold it's remarkably powerful, and a US without
that is a big change. (Probably more appropriate to s.h.w-i, though)

>At the risk of pushing this more-than-somewhat OT topic
>into an arid wilderness, we are faced with the fait accompli of the
>destruction of the liberal arts education in the US and much of the
>anglosphere in favour of some kind of bizarre, historically-ignorant,
>posturing self-loathing that passes for "the Left". Which has gained
>itself a stranglehold, a bit like Russian ivy, all over the bloody
>place, especially the meeja.

You hardly need it, Alan, but Frances Wheen's "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered
The World" is a good read on these matters - I especially enjoyed the
description of l'affaire Sokal, which I had not previously heard of, but
which conformed with horrible precision my preconceptions of how such a
prank might go.

>Me, when I need leftwing guidance, I ask myself what Lenin would have
>done. The answer rarely involves gender politics or queer studies, but
>tends towards, shall we say, more robust solutions.

When in doubt, shoot some more intellectuals, revisionists, hooligans
and saboteurs... and if they run short, shoot anyone inconvenient and
_then_ denounce them as revisionists, intellectuals, saboteurs and
hooligans. (Today's soggy-Left should thank their lucky stars Lenin and
Stalin are no more, it always seemed to be easier to kill toadies than
real opponents. Trotsky took a lot of hunting and killing, while Stalin
executed most of his 'inner circle' with little apparent effort)

>From which, as the
>most liberal and tolerant of men, I am usually obliged to distance
>myself. Still, it's always there as a thought.

I'd consider myself fairly liberal, in the classical sense at least
(even got a degree from UCL) though I grow less tolerant with age.

Perhaps Lenin was too soft in limiting himself to small-arms.

>> This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
>> media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
>> hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
>> Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.
>
>Another "yes, but." The thing I can't forgive the meeja (by which I
>mean overwhelmingly tv) is their utter incapacity to avoid telling
>lies. Indeed, their complete epistemological inability to tell one from
>the other: only what makes "good" tv and what does not. They're quite
>smart at that.

From a military point of view, that's like complaining about geography:
why do the enemy never let you assault them downhill, over dry ground
with good going yet plenty of nice concealing folds and tussocks, on a
day not so hot you sweat to death during the assault nor so cold that
certain important bits froze off waiting for H-Hour?

"The meeja" exist as they are, just as the weather and the ground and
the enemy do. Good commanders do what they can to gain benefit from them
(like, making sure 'Our Story' is better TV than 'Their Story') while
limiting the damage they can do. Not easy, but that's why good
commanders are to be cherished.

>> Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.
>
>Thankless in success, worse in failure.

Sadly, far from alone in the military pantheon. Even I, having a layer
of political insulation and friendly distance from the _direct_
consequences of any failure, will likely only come to notice if things
go badly pear-shaped.

--
Paul J. Adam

[[email protected]]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2006 10:05:57 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo > wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
> >>
> >> I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
> >> have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
> >> question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
> >> sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
> >> to narrow it down with any real confidence.
> >>
> >
> >Unwilling to commit fraud because there is no statistically valid way
> >to 'narrow' down the results.
>
> Untrue. It could have been accomplished with a larger sample size.

No, that would not narrow down the results. It would produce a
new, larger dataset with new results.

>
> >The conclusion was that the mortality rate was determined, at a
> >confidence level of 95%, to be higher post-invasion than pre-invasion.
>
> That wasn't the conclusion at all. Between diverting food and medicine funds
> to build more palaces, starting wars with his neighbors and using chemical
> weapons on his own people; Saddam was easily killing 50,000 or more of his own
> people every single year in addition to all other causes

Just where in the study published in Lancet did you find that
conclusion?

--

FF

[Fred J. McCall]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

:On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:35:38 -0700, "Robert" > wrote:
:>
:>"Vince" > wrote in message
. ..
:>> Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>>>
:>>> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
:>>> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:>>
:>> Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
:>> war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
:>> 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.
:>
:>You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.
:>
:>View it as the war after Korea.
:>Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
:>large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.
:>
:>That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
:>an actual shooting war with China, again.
:
:Then, review Korea. The Korean war was a UN action. The Security
:Council voted to deploy UN forces (not USA) and that was to maintain
:the integrity of the south from a manifest invasion. Fixed,
:conventional military forces, not revolutionaries. You are correct
:that the Chinese intervened when it was apparent that their proxies
:could not get the job done.
:
:Note that the intervention was NOT nuclear. Note that the Soviets were
:NOT involved either.

Also note that there was bombing just pretty close to Chinese
territory (if not actually in it) which may have had a bit to do with
their decision to send troops.

:Now, review the relationship between Vietnam and China. Vietnam was
:and is NOT a friend of China. There was NOT an invasion (until well
:into 1968) and the war was not a conventional fixed piece, traditional
:front sort of conflict. The US forces did not move N. of the 17th
:parallel and weren't anywhere near the Chinese border, even if China
:were a supporter of NVN.
:
:Much different situation than Korea.

And, as I said, if we'd just said we'd stop well short of the Chinese
border there probably wouldn't have been a Chinese reaction at all.

--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Ed Rasimus > wrote:
:>
:> :No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
:> :back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
:> :had the political will to do so.
:>
:> The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
:> which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
:> as long as required.
:>
:> It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
:> little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
:> did anything more.
:>
:> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
:> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:
:Because that strategy worked so well in Korea?

South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
is what?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:But to what degree was Vietnam different precisely because we
:adopted a different strategy against the North?

That's why the outcome was different. The war, of course, would have
been different, regardless. Not because of there being adjacent
countries, but because of the difference between triple-canopy jungle
and mountains.

--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>
:> ...
:>
:> 2) If guilty, they'll wind up tried and convicted and in the military
:> prison in Leavenworth (if they don't draw a death penalty, which is
:> pretty unlikely in a military court).
:
:So far, every man convicted of contributing to the murders at
:Bagram has returned to duty. That does not inspire much
:confidence.

Circumstances alter cases, no matter how much you might dislike it.

:> 3) They're being held in a military brig here in the States, with
:> conditions probably worse than those in Cuba.
:
:Held in a brig, sure. Worse than in Cuba, not likely.

Don't know much about either military brigs or Cuba, do you?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :>
> :> ...
> :>
> :> 2) If guilty, they'll wind up tried and convicted and in the military
> :> prison in Leavenworth (if they don't draw a death penalty, which is
> :> pretty unlikely in a military court).
> :
> :So far, every man convicted of contributing to the murders at
> :Bagram has returned to duty. That does not inspire much
> :confidence.
>
> Circumstances alter cases, no matter how much you might dislike it.

In these cases the circumstances seem to be that there were photos
of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but none from Bagram, and so there
was more publicity about the lesser crimes at Abu Ghraib. That's
the fault of the media, and I blame them for being irresponsible.

The sentences handed down appear to have depended more on the
publicity surrounding the cases, than on the severity of the crimes.
That I blame on the people running our courts-martial.

>
> :> 3) They're being held in a military brig here in the States, with
> :> conditions probably worse than those in Cuba.
> :
> :Held in a brig, sure. Worse than in Cuba, not likely.
>
> Don't know much about either military brigs or Cuba, do you?
>

I haven't been to either, have you?

--

FF

[Andrew Swallow]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
[snip]

>
> South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
> is what?
>
Full of exploited proletariat living under a feudal system straight out
of the early middle ages.

Andrew Swallow

[Fred J. McCall]

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :>
:> :> ...
:> :>
:> :> 2) If guilty, they'll wind up tried and convicted and in the military
:> :> prison in Leavenworth (if they don't draw a death penalty, which is
:> :> pretty unlikely in a military court).
:> :
:> :So far, every man convicted of contributing to the murders at
:> :Bagram has returned to duty. That does not inspire much
:> :confidence.
:>
:> Circumstances alter cases, no matter how much you might dislike it.
:
:In these cases the circumstances seem to be that there were photos
:of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but none from Bagram, and so there
:was more publicity about the lesser crimes at Abu Ghraib. That's
:the fault of the media, and I blame them for being irresponsible.
:
:The sentences handed down appear to have depended more on the
:publicity surrounding the cases, than on the severity of the crimes.
:That I blame on the people running our courts-martial.

And you are familiar with all the facts of all the cases, so that you
can arrive at these conclusions? Or do you merely arrive at them out
of thin air?

:> :> 3) They're being held in a military brig here in the States, with
:> :> conditions probably worse than those in Cuba.
:> :
:> :Held in a brig, sure. Worse than in Cuba, not likely.
:>
:> Don't know much about either military brigs or Cuba, do you?
:
:I haven't been to either, have you?

Yes, I have. And one needn't have been somewhere to actually know
something about it, in any case. One need merely have the desire to
check the facts; a desire that you virtually always seem to lack.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[Fred J. McCall]

Andrew Swallow > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:[snip]
:
:>
:> South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
:> is what?
:
:Full of exploited proletariat living under a feudal system straight out
:of the early middle ages.

"Exploited proletariat"?

<snicker>

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> ...
> :> :>
> :> :> 2) If guilty, they'll wind up tried and convicted and in the military
> :> :> prison in Leavenworth (if they don't draw a death penalty, which is
> :> :> pretty unlikely in a military court).
> :> :
> :> :So far, every man convicted of contributing to the murders at
> :> :Bagram has returned to duty. That does not inspire much
> :> :confidence.
> :>
> :> Circumstances alter cases, no matter how much you might dislike it.
> :
> :In these cases the circumstances seem to be that there were photos
> :of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but none from Bagram, and so there
> :was more publicity about the lesser crimes at Abu Ghraib. That's
> :the fault of the media, and I blame them for being irresponsible.
> :
> :The sentences handed down appear to have depended more on the
> :publicity surrounding the cases, than on the severity of the crimes.
> :That I blame on the people running our courts-martial.
>
> And you are familiar with all the facts of all the cases,

No one is familiar with all the facts of all the cases.

--

FF

[The Leslie Cheswick Soul Explosion]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 22:05:23 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

> From a military point of view, that's like complaining about geography:
>why do the enemy never let you assault them downhill, over dry ground
>with good going yet plenty of nice concealing folds and tussocks, on a
>day not so hot you sweat to death during the assault nor so cold that
>certain important bits froze off waiting for H-Hour?

There is a larger issue about the extent to which the military
perspective is influenced by external social and cultural issues.
Geography is (largely) beyond human agency to inform or alter, at
least in the short term. The meejah issue is more malleable - my
parallel would be to ask why are the Blue forces required to attack
uphill, in poor weather, against prepared Red defences while their own
supporting arms are curtailed? Why is the behaviour of Red Forces to
kidnap, multilate and murder civilians and combatants alike not
subjected to the same level of "war crimes" scrutiny?

This is the problem for the military in places like Iraq - the
subjective application of double-standards and the perpetuation of
assumptive judgements formed and supported b the meejah. In many
cases they reflect the assumptions of the host culture, but while that
explains them, it does not legitimise them.

>"The meeja" exist as they are, just as the weather and the ground and
>the enemy do. Good commanders do what they can to gain benefit from them
>(like, making sure 'Our Story' is better TV than 'Their Story') while
>limiting the damage they can do. Not easy, but that's why good
>commanders are to be cherished.

Indeed, but even without counter-propaganda, the doublethink,
groupthink and downright hypocrisy of normal meejah coverage should
not pass without question or challenge. This is a meejah problem in
the first instance, as the meejah have as much responsibility to
police each other as they do to bring politicians and generals down.
Their failure to do this makes the problem a larger cultural and
social one.

Gavin Bailey
--
I have enough of Windows error message which say "Intelligent life
not detected at keyboard." You hear me good Bill! Not mess Eastern
devil warrior. Yeah like Jackie Chan. Worse Bart Kwan-En.
- Bart Kwan En

[Moritz Wünsch]

Fred J. McCall schrieb:

> Vince > wrote:
>
> :I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. ...
>
> Yes. And so you know more than the folks who were there doing the
> fighting. Or so you think.
>
> :I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
> :well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.
>
> Yes, well everyone wasn't like you, Vinnie. I find it funny that you
> hate George Bush and try to smear him with claims that he 'dodged the
> draft' by going in the National Guard, while at the same time you love
> Clinton and make statements like the preceding.
>
> Feh!
>
> --
> "Der Fiege droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
> --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I´m quite sure Goethe wrote "Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist." ;-)

[Fred J. McCall]

Moritz Wünsch > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall schrieb:
:
:> Vince > wrote:
:>
:> :I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. ...
:>
:> Yes. And so you know more than the folks who were there doing the
:> fighting. Or so you think.
:>
:> :I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
:> :well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.
:>
:> Yes, well everyone wasn't like you, Vinnie. I find it funny that you
:> hate George Bush and try to smear him with claims that he 'dodged the
:> draft' by going in the National Guard, while at the same time you love
:> Clinton and make statements like the preceding.
:>
:> Feh!
:>
: > --
: > "Der Fiege droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
: > --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
:
:I´m quite sure Goethe wrote "Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist." ;-)

Damned keyboard has a mind of its own....

--
"The way of the samurai is found in death. If by setting one's heart
right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his
body were already dead, he gains freedom in The Way. His whole life
will be without blame, and he will succeed in his calling."
-- "Hagakure Kikigaki", Yamamoto Tsunetomo

[[email protected]]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> wrote:
>
> :
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> ...
> :>
> :> Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
> :> leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
> :
> :Because that strategy worked so well in Korea?
>
> South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
> is what?

Your point is well made. The Russian threat to use nuclear
weapons should we send ground forces North of the DMZ was
NOT widely published (to say the least) at the time. How well
established is that?

Assuming it was true, keep in mind the perception that it was
the Cuban missle crisis that knocked Kruschev out of power.




In another article in this thread, (direct replies via Google have
expired)

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>...

> That canard about who went to war and who went to the Guard has been
> discussed at length in R.A.M. Flying single seat, single engine
> tactical jets for 4.5 years trumps driving a fishing boat upriver for
> six months and then calling everyone you served with a war criminal in
> the balance of most of the folks I deal with.

A great many men served on the Swift Boats. Refering to them
as "fishing boats" denigrates the service of all of those men,
not just the one whom you dislike.

As to why he chose fighter jets, GWB (who flew for a bit less
than four years but that's a nit) said he enlisted in the Texas
AFNG as a alternative to service in Vietnam.

--

FF