Re: BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...

[B2431]

>From: c
>Date: 11/8/2003 9:42 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Don't Mention the Dead
>When the body of US soldier Artimus Brassfield was flown to the
>military mortuary at Dover, Delaware, there were no TV pictures of a
>flag-covered coffin and hero's salute - the White House has banned
>media coverage at the base. But can Bush's efforts to hide the body
>bags quell growing public disquiet over the death toll in Iraq?
> by Gary Younge
>story is here:
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1107-01.htm
>
>Published on Friday, November 7, 2003 by the Guardian/UK

This has been the official Pentagon policy since 1991. Nice try.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

B2431 wrote:
>> From: c
>> Date: 11/8/2003 9:42 AM Central Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> Don't Mention the Dead
>> When the body of US soldier Artimus Brassfield was flown to the
>> military mortuary at Dover, Delaware, there were no TV pictures of a
>> flag-covered coffin and hero's salute - the White House has banned
>> media coverage at the base. But can Bush's efforts to hide the body
>> bags quell growing public disquiet over the death toll in Iraq?
>> by Gary Younge
>> story is here:
>> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1107-01.htm
>>
>> Published on Friday, November 7, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
>
> This has been the official Pentagon policy since 1991. Nice try.

So what? It's not a law and, even if it was, it could and should be changed.
It's a matter of showing respect and, if there happens to be a political price
to pay to do that, then so be it. There's a price being paid for not doing it
and the longer making that change is put off, the higher that price becomes.
It's the President's choice, and he's the one who's going to pay if he guesses
wrong.

George Z.

[killfile]

It's not a Pentagon policy, it's a White House policy that was first seen in
the 91' Gulf War.

It didn't stop Clinton meeting the Military dead off the plane, something
which GW Bush seems to think is beyond him.

Matt

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: c
> >Date: 11/8/2003 9:42 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Don't Mention the Dead
> >When the body of US soldier Artimus Brassfield was flown to the
> >military mortuary at Dover, Delaware, there were no TV pictures of a
> >flag-covered coffin and hero's salute - the White House has banned
> >media coverage at the base. But can Bush's efforts to hide the body
> >bags quell growing public disquiet over the death toll in Iraq?
> > by Gary Younge
> >story is here:
> >http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1107-01.htm
> >
> >Published on Friday, November 7, 2003 by the Guardian/UK
>
> This has been the official Pentagon policy since 1991. Nice try.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

>Only Bob Dole, who was the real thing, got solid military votes.

Uhh, Mr. Democrat.com, you might want to check the number/percentage of
military votes Bush got compared to Gore.

>The Democrats or the GOP? At
>the rate we are going, the post war death toll will be about 3x the
>war death toll. What a waste of life.

A waste of life? You sir, not suprisingly, are the lowest form of life I've
seen on these boards. Those young men who have died have only wasted their
lives if Iraq is not established as a stable, peaceful nation and its far to
early to make that determination. I'm looking forward to you political
commercials next year in the run-up to the election, how low can you go?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>I would have loved to hear your comments during Okinawa, or Gettysburg.
>Some things are worth figthing and dying for, Peace in the Mid-East
>(by way of Democracy) surely is worth it, isn't it?

Only if your political party is the one making the policy. This goes for
Republicans (guilty of such actions in '99) as well as Democrats. We've come
to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
nation as a whole. There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US solider
is killed in Iraq.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[George Z. Bush]

BUFDRVR wrote:
>> I would have loved to hear your comments during Okinawa, or Gettysburg.
>> Some things are worth figthing and dying for, Peace in the Mid-East
>> (by way of Democracy) surely is worth it, isn't it?
>
> Only if your political party is the one making the policy. This goes for
> Republicans (guilty of such actions in '99) as well as Democrats. We've come
> to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
> nation as a whole. There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US solider
> is killed in Iraq.

Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and I'm
a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?

I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
there are Democrats who do the same.

George Z.

[[email protected]]

Oh, they never have proof for such crap. Like Limbaugh, Coulter,
Hannity, Weiner (Savage), etc, they just make that crap up.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
> >> I would have loved to hear your comments during Okinawa, or Gettysburg.
> >> Some things are worth figthing and dying for, Peace in the Mid-East
> >> (by way of Democracy) surely is worth it, isn't it?
> >
> > Only if your political party is the one making the policy. This goes for
> > Republicans (guilty of such actions in '99) as well as Democrats. We've come
> > to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
> > nation as a whole. There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US solider
> > is killed in Iraq.
>
> Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and I'm
> a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?
>
> I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
> there are Democrats who do the same.
>
> George Z.

[[email protected]]

Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:

'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1076321,00.html

Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
cough) "Mission Accomplished."



(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >Only Bob Dole, who was the real thing, got solid military votes.
>
> Uhh, Mr. Democrat.com, you might want to check the number/percentage of
> military votes Bush got compared to Gore.
>
> >The Democrats or the GOP? At
> >the rate we are going, the post war death toll will be about 3x the
> >war death toll. What a waste of life.
>
> A waste of life? You sir, not suprisingly, are the lowest form of life I've
> seen on these boards. Those young men who have died have only wasted their
> lives if Iraq is not established as a stable, peaceful nation and its far to
> early to make that determination. I'm looking forward to you political
> commercials next year in the run-up to the election, how low can you go?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
> >> I would have loved to hear your comments during Okinawa, or Gettysburg.
> >> Some things are worth figthing and dying for, Peace in the Mid-East
> >> (by way of Democracy) surely is worth it, isn't it?
> >
> > Only if your political party is the one making the policy. This goes for
> > Republicans (guilty of such actions in '99) as well as Democrats. We've come
> > to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
> > nation as a whole. There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US solider
> > is killed in Iraq.
>
> Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and I'm
> a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?
>
> I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
> there are Democrats who do the same.
>
> George Z.

Wesley Clark? The guy who screwed up and told Albright that it would
take only a "few days" of bombing to make Milosevic cave in, then
prognosticated that the assault on Baghdad was in dire straits because
it lacked sufficient combat power (only to see Baghdad fall within the
next two weeks), and is now running for President as a Democrat? Or
for that matter, you can flip on your TV news and watch any number of
current Democratic legislators (and a host of other presidential
pretenders) bemoan the situation in Iraq on a daily basis, trying to
turn it to their political benefit. You are a WWII vet--can you recall
many Republicans in that era railing against the war effort at every
turn while FDR was in the White House?

BUFFDRVR has made a valid point, and yes, he acknowledged that it cuts
both ways (he has therefore demonstrated a heck of a lot more lack of
bias in this regard than you have)--Republicans were only too glad to
point out the problems with the Kosovo operation as it unfolded,
though not to my recollection as pointedly or vociferously as we have
seen recently from the other side of the isle. Domestic political
objectives do seem to have eclipsed the older ideals of unity and
support for the troops (and if I hear one more Democratic senator
spend five minutes slamming the current situation in Iraq and our
alleged inadequacies, with his by-rote appended, "But of course I
support the *troops*!", I am going to retch).

Brooks

[George Z. Bush]

wrote:
> Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
> even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
> Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:
>
> 'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
> which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1076321,00.html
>
> Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
> cough) "Mission Accomplished."
>

I think you're confusing the two conflicts.....I don't believe anybody claimed
the war in Afghanistan was over. OBL is still running around loose and,
according to 60 Minutes, the only part of Afghanistan that's reasonably safe is
the area around Kabul. The rest of the country is apparently still no-man's
land, with the Taliban and war lords fighting over some parts, and opium (and
heroin) producing poppies growing everywhere.

Do we pick our wars, or what!!!

George Z.

[Michael P. Reed]

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...

> We've come
> to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
> nation as a whole.

You think it's bad now? See what the Federalists and Republicans were
saying about one another back in 1798 and 1812. There is nothing new
to this sniping. Hell, there was all sorts of dirty politics being
played out even during WWII.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[George Z. Bush]

"Mark Test" > wrote in message
...
> "Your Name Here" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 15:07:18 -0600, "Mark Test" >
> > wrote:

(Snip)
>
> Hmmm IIRC, in 1973 Nixon had brought the N. Vietnamese to the
> table, (Paris peace accords), so victory was close. Then the democrats
> used watergate to get Nixon out of office and then they cut and run.
>
> My answer: we should have stayed and won the war, not cut and run.

Your chronology is a little faulty. The war ended for us in March of 1973, and
the Congressional investigation of Watergate didn't even start until May of that
year. You need to remember that Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats, started
and expanded the war and that in spite of it escalating, Johnson couldn't find a
way to get out of it short of turning it into a nuclear war. Johnson tried his
best to get it won but, although we had continued to win battle after battle,
they just kept coming and kept throwing people at us regardless of how many of
them we wiped out. Anyway, having lived through it, I don't recall that the
decision to negotiate the end of the war was one of those Democrat v. Republican
political things that seem to be so common today. Even if it was, it would have
been a case of the Republicans wanting to bail out of a Democratic war.....they
were the ones who did the cutting and running, if that's what you want to call
it.

BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it was hardly
going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened was that we pulled out
and left the South Vietnamese to continue the fight on their own. I think they
only lasted a couple of months after our last troops left.

George Z.

[[email protected]]

Well, yeah, Karzai (sp) is the mayor of Kabul, not the president of
Afghanistan. However, my point is still valid in that American's died
so that they can have a constitution in Afghanistan that says Islam is
the Afghanistan religion. I don't think that was one of the goals of
the war.


"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> wrote:
> > Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
> > even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
> > Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:
> >
> > 'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
> > which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1076321,00.html
> >
> > Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
> > cough) "Mission Accomplished."
> >
>
> I think you're confusing the two conflicts.....I don't believe anybody claimed
> the war in Afghanistan was over. OBL is still running around loose and,
> according to 60 Minutes, the only part of Afghanistan that's reasonably safe is
> the area around Kabul. The rest of the country is apparently still no-man's
> land, with the Taliban and war lords fighting over some parts, and opium (and
> heroin) producing poppies growing everywhere.
>
> Do we pick our wars, or what!!!
>
> George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

I'm not really bent out of shape over what's in the Afghanistan constitution. I
look at TV pictures coming out of Kabul and see women walking around without
those god-awful head-to-toe robes on, and I see girl children in school being
educated, and that's enough of an improvement for me to not worry too much about
how they're going to pray. That's their choice anyway.

George Z.

" > wrote in message
om...
> Well, yeah, Karzai (sp) is the mayor of Kabul, not the president of
> Afghanistan. However, my point is still valid in that American's died
> so that they can have a constitution in Afghanistan that says Islam is
> the Afghanistan religion. I don't think that was one of the goals of
> the war.
>
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > wrote:
> > > Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
> > > even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
> > > Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:
> > >
> > > 'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
> > > which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1076321,00.html
> > >
> > > Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
> > > cough) "Mission Accomplished."
> > >
> >
> > I think you're confusing the two conflicts.....I don't believe anybody
claimed
> > the war in Afghanistan was over. OBL is still running around loose and,
> > according to 60 Minutes, the only part of Afghanistan that's reasonably safe
is
> > the area around Kabul. The rest of the country is apparently still no-man's
> > land, with the Taliban and war lords fighting over some parts, and opium
(and
> > heroin) producing poppies growing everywhere.
> >
> > Do we pick our wars, or what!!!
> >
> > George Z.

[Stephen Harding]

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >The Democrats or the GOP? At
> >the rate we are going, the post war death toll will be about 3x the
> >war death toll. What a waste of life.
>
> A waste of life? You sir, not suprisingly, are the lowest form of life I've
> seen on these boards. Those young men who have died have only wasted their
> lives if Iraq is not established as a stable, peaceful nation and its far to
> early to make that determination. I'm looking forward to you political
> commercials next year in the run-up to the election, how low can you go?

Even if these guys were against the idea of war in Iraq, it *has happened*!
Now they should move on to dealing with it, rather than fight the "whether we
should" battle all over!

I get the impression that some of these folks are so deep in their anti-Bush
hatreds that they would happily recreate a new domestic political climate
similar to Vietnam War circa 1970 if they could.

Let the US take a huge defeat in Iraq if it will further their anti-Bush
agendas. Really disgusting!


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
>
> BUFDRVR wrote:
> >> I would have loved to hear your comments during Okinawa, or Gettysburg.
> >> Some things are worth figthing and dying for, Peace in the Mid-East
> >> (by way of Democracy) surely is worth it, isn't it?
> >
> > Only if your political party is the one making the policy. This goes for
> > Republicans (guilty of such actions in '99) as well as Democrats. We've come
> > to a point in this nation when political parties take presedence over the
> > nation as a whole. There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US solider
> > is killed in Iraq.
>
> Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and I'm
> a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?
>
> I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
> there are Democrats who do the same.

Don't know that any Dem is going to "celebrate" the death of another soldier,
but it surely plays into their political plans for capturing the White House.

They do seem to be hyping up every death and my belief is it is for political
purposes.

Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).


SMH

[David Brower]

"George Z. Bush" > writes:

>BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it
>was hardly going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened
>was that we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to continue the
>fight on their own. I think they only lasted a couple of months
>after our last troops left.

While a Dem personally, I'll point out a flaw in Z's description.
Ford was POTUS, and concluded he could not fly air support for RVN in
'75 because the Democratically controlled congress would not provide
funding for further involvement. Lack of US material and air support
were among the reasons for the RVN's collapse, but their own handling
and behaviour at Ban Me Thuot didn't help.

My opinion is that the country was not prepared to continue, so it
mattered little which party controlled Congress. I admit that is
conjecture.

The point is, Nixon slipped the US out by promising support he couldn't
really be sure would be provided if needed. It was needed, and it
wasn't provided. Thieu rightly believed at the time that he'd been
sold out for empty promises, but there was nothing he could do about it.

(Comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq left as exercises.)

-dB

--
Butterflies tell me to say:
"The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
represent those of Oracle Corporation."

[David Brower]

Stephen Harding > writes:

>"George Z. Bush" wrote:

>Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
>Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
>improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Pot, kettle; it didn't hurt Nixon that Johnson was stuck in Vietnam
either. Depressing as this is, it is business as usual.


-dB




--
Butterflies tell me to say:
"The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
represent those of Oracle Corporation."

[miso]

Nobody can argue that the people of Afghanistan aren't better off
without the Taliban. Still, I would like to think Christian minorities
could live there without oppression.

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> I'm not really bent out of shape over what's in the Afghanistan constitution. I
> look at TV pictures coming out of Kabul and see women walking around without
> those god-awful head-to-toe robes on, and I see girl children in school being
> educated, and that's enough of an improvement for me to not worry too much about
> how they're going to pray. That's their choice anyway.
>
> George Z.
>
> " > wrote in message
> om...
> > Well, yeah, Karzai (sp) is the mayor of Kabul, not the president of
> > Afghanistan. However, my point is still valid in that American's died
> > so that they can have a constitution in Afghanistan that says Islam is
> > the Afghanistan religion. I don't think that was one of the goals of
> > the war.
> >
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > wrote:
> > > > Let's use Afghanistan as an example. In theory, the war is over there,
> > > > even though the president didn't hitch a ride onto a carrier deck.
> > > > Look at this phrase in the Afghanistan constitution:
> > > >
> > > > 'It says Islam is Afghanistan's religion and "no law will be made
> > > > which will oppose the principles of Islam".'
> > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1076321,00.html
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, some democracy. However, a certain party is declaring (cough
> > > > cough) "Mission Accomplished."
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think you're confusing the two conflicts.....I don't believe anybody
> claimed
> > > the war in Afghanistan was over. OBL is still running around loose and,
> > > according to 60 Minutes, the only part of Afghanistan that's reasonably safe
> is
> > > the area around Kabul. The rest of the country is apparently still no-man's
> > > land, with the Taliban and war lords fighting over some parts, and opium
> (and
> > > heroin) producing poppies growing everywhere.
> > >
> > > Do we pick our wars, or what!!!
> > >
> > > George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" wrote:
>>
>> BUFDRVR wrote:

>>> ......... There are Democrats that celebrate every time a US
>>> solider is killed in Iraq.
>>
>> Care to provide a name to go with your accusation? I don't know of any, and
>> I'm a Democrat. How come you know who they are and I don't?
>>
>> I'm sure that there are as many Republicans who celebrate our casualties as
>> there are Democrats who do the same.
>
> Don't know that any Dem is going to "celebrate" the death of another soldier,
> but it surely plays into their political plans for capturing the White House.
>
> They do seem to be hyping up every death and my belief is it is for political
> purposes.
>
> Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
> Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
> improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the
Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
it alone.

George Z.

[Stephen Harding]

David Brower wrote:

> Stephen Harding > writes:
>
> >"George Z. Bush" wrote:
>
> >Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
> >Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
> >improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).
>
> Pot, kettle; it didn't hurt Nixon that Johnson was stuck in Vietnam
> either. Depressing as this is, it is business as usual.

Probably true.

But I don't think there was quite the polarization between Left and Right
that exists today. That pushes the best interests of the nation even
farther into the background in favor of personal or party gain.

That's my take on it any ways.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
>
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
> > Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
> > improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).
>
> Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
> American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the

Then I don't think you're being politically realistic.

While I don't believe our Senators and Representatives *want* more US casualties
to help attain their political goals, the parties most certainly do make plans
based on how certain issues/problems play out. Dems will be favored if Iraq
is seen as a "quagmire", just as they'll be helped if the economy stays stale.

> Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
> allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
> reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
> have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
> it alone.

In hindsight, when car bombs are exploding along NYC or DC streets on a fairly
regular basis, we'll see the Iraqi effort was cheap compared to having it all
happen at home.

We'll see very clearly the lesson of dropping the ball in Iraq because it "wasn't
worth it" was extremely short sighted.

The terrorists will learn that OBL was right! Americans are paper tigers without
the will to see difficult objectives through to their completion. Car bombs
worked in Lebanon. They worked in Mogadishu. They worked in Iraq. They'll
work anywhere against US interests, and they'll even work in NYC and LA.

This all won't come to pass the day after we depart Iraq in defeat, but I
believe it will come.


SMH

[George Z. Bush]

David Brower wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > writes:
>
>> BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it
>> was hardly going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened
>> was that we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to continue the
>> fight on their own. I think they only lasted a couple of months
>> after our last troops left.
>
> While a Dem personally, I'll point out a flaw in Z's description.
> Ford was POTUS, and concluded he could not fly air support for RVN in
> '75 because the Democratically controlled congress would not provide
> funding for further involvement. Lack of US material and air support
> were among the reasons for the RVN's collapse, but their own handling
> and behaviour at Ban Me Thuot didn't help.
>
> My opinion is that the country was not prepared to continue, so it
> mattered little which party controlled Congress. I admit that is
> conjecture.
>
> The point is, Nixon slipped the US out by promising support he couldn't
> really be sure would be provided if needed. It was needed, and it
> wasn't provided. Thieu rightly believed at the time that he'd been
> sold out for empty promises, but there was nothing he could do about it.
>
> (Comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq left as exercises.)

Although the flaw you found was too insignificant for me to have to acknowledge
or take exception to, I don't see any notable difference in our views on the
factors leading to the collapse of the South Vietnamese gpvernment and its
surrender to North Vietnam. As to your reference to Afghanistand and Iraq, as a
nation we seem to have sadly made a hallmark of empty promises.

Whatever happened to "our word is our bond"?

George Z.


>
> -dB

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>> Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
>>> Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
>>> improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).
>>
>> Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for
>> any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of
>> the
>
> Then I don't think you're being politically realistic.
>
> While I don't believe our Senators and Representatives *want* more US
> casualties to help attain their political goals, the parties most certainly
> do make plans based on how certain issues/problems play out. Dems will be
> favored if Iraq
> is seen as a "quagmire", just as they'll be helped if the economy stays stale.
>
>> Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
>> allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
>> reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we
>> would have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead
>> of going it alone.
>
> In hindsight, when car bombs are exploding along NYC or DC streets on a fairly
> regular basis, we'll see the Iraqi effort was cheap compared to having it all
> happen at home.
>
> We'll see very clearly the lesson of dropping the ball in Iraq because it
> "wasn't worth it" was extremely short sighted.
>
> The terrorists will learn that OBL was right! Americans are paper tigers
> without the will to see difficult objectives through to their completion.
> Car bombs worked in Lebanon. They worked in Mogadishu. They worked in Iraq.
> They'll work anywhere against US interests, and they'll even work in NYC and
> LA.
>
> This all won't come to pass the day after we depart Iraq in defeat, but I
> believe it will come.

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll pass on
the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing that your
guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

George Z.
>
>
> SMH

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:


>Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
>American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the
>Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
>allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
>reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
>have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
>it alone.
>
>George Z.
>

Had a student in my American Gov't class last week, an Iraqi Freedom
vet, Marine. He indicated the intent not to vote for Bush' reelection,
although when pressed, he couldn't find any identification with the
opposition other than his disappointment in the "quagmire" of Iraq.

I asked him if he knew where the metaphor originated, and, being a
modern American product of our educational system, he did not. I
explained that David Halberstam had written "Making of a Quagmire"
more than five YEARS after the start of full-blown US/NVN hostilities.
I pointed out that Iraqi Freedom lasted five WEEKS, and the rebuilding
phase has been going on for less than five MONTHS. Hardly "bogged
down" at this point, although the potential exists.

Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder. It was
eighteen months until George Marshall's genius of rebuilding rather
than punishing ala Versailles began to create the stable, economically
powerful Germany and post-war Europe.

We live in a "USA Today/MTV" sort of world in which resolution must
occur within seconds or we jump cut to the next suggestive video
segment.

"Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
one. Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
beyond Israel.

"Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 11/12/03 4:35 AM Pacific

>ell, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
>cleaning cloth hasn't com

My eyes are dim I cannot see,
I have not got my E6-B with me,
Over the Valley of the Ruhr.

WW II AAC ditty with parts left out.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for
>> any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of
>> the Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our
>> nation allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for
>> non-existent reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday
>> conclude that we would have been better off letting the UN handle the mess
>> their way, instead of going it alone.
>>
>> George Z.
>>

(Snip)

> Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
> aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
> was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder.

I was in Italy until June 1946 and, other than the presence of some refugees,
there was little looting, sniping or disorder visible to the naked eye. Maybe
the birthplace of the Mafia was more law abiding than was defeated Germany, but
I didn't see the things you inferred were endemic. And I do not remember any
reports of ongoing resistance to the end of the war in Germany as is apparently
in progress in Iraq today. There may have been isolated instances of rifle
fire, but nothing more.

> ......It was eighteen months until George Marshall's genius of rebuilding
rather
> than punishing ala Versailles began to create the stable, economically
> powerful Germany and post-war Europe.
>
> We live in a "USA Today/MTV" sort of world in which resolution must
> occur within seconds or we jump cut to the next suggestive video
> segment.
>
> "Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
> bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
> one.

If that's a reason to go to war, then we must have a veritable grab bag of
eligible sites for the next adventure. The world is full of oppressed
dictatorial nations, as is that region, and we are even allied with a good
number of them.

> .....Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
> again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
> beyond Israel.

That's another way of saying that "this is going to hurt you more than it's
going to hurt me" isn't it? All we have to do is to beat them into stability,
even if it doesn't suit them.
>
> "Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
> examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?

I confess that I would sooner have them firing their RPGs and detonating their
land mines when UN forces go by than when the targets are solely American. So,
if the policy fails, it's a UN policy that fails, and if there are casualties,
they are UN casualties. Let's face it, we're not in this out of the goodness of
our national hearts.....we're in it because, whether or not it's yet clear to us
ordinary Americans, we're going to profit in some way for our involvement.
Some of us suspect that it won't involve much more than oil or big business in
some way. In any case, anybody who swallows the proposition that we are
altruistic in our foreign affairs has got to be the world's most gullible guppy.

George Z.

[Stephen Harding]

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

> Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
> cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll pass on
> the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing that your
> guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

Don't really need a crystal ball do you George?

We know what happens when one doesn't stand up to tyranny. We know what
happens when failure in will (usually always for very good reasons), allows
darkness to prevail. I think even you'll agree Saddam and Osama are on the
side of darkness. Removal from Lebanon and Somalia only encouraged the OBL
crowd. Don't think for a minute they can not win in Iraq. The odds are in
their favor.

Don't get me wrong. I'm neo-isolationist at heart. I don't think the US
should ever have been in Lebanon or Somalia, despite honest reasons.

I don't think the US should be in Kosovo or Bosnia, despite images of
massacred farmers or urbanites of the wrong ethnic persuasion.

But we were there! And once there, to be run out can only be bad. Now,
like it or not, we're in Iraq, for actually quite fair reasons IMHO.

So what's it going to be?

I don't think you need to be a modern day Nostradamus to see any trends
here do you?


SMH

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:23:17 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for
>>> any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of
>>> the Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our
>>> nation allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for
>>> non-existent reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday
>>> conclude that we would have been better off letting the UN handle the mess
>>> their way, instead of going it alone.
>>>
>>> George Z.
>>>
>
>(Snip)
>
>> Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
>> aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
>> was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder.
>
>I was in Italy until June 1946 and, other than the presence of some refugees,
>there was little looting, sniping or disorder visible to the naked eye. Maybe
>the birthplace of the Mafia was more law abiding than was defeated Germany, but
>I didn't see the things you inferred were endemic. And I do not remember any
>reports of ongoing resistance to the end of the war in Germany as is apparently
>in progress in Iraq today. There may have been isolated instances of rifle
>fire, but nothing more.

There's a whole big mountain range between Italy and central Europe.
The war rolled through Italy a year and a half before Germany
collapsed and the level of destruction as Berlin was caught between
the two oncoming armies from East and West was considerably different
than Italy.
>
>> ......It was eighteen months until George Marshall's genius of rebuilding
>rather
>> than punishing ala Versailles began to create the stable, economically
>> powerful Germany and post-war Europe.
>>
>> We live in a "USA Today/MTV" sort of world in which resolution must
>> occur within seconds or we jump cut to the next suggestive video
>> segment.
>>
>> "Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
>> bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
>> one.
>
>If that's a reason to go to war, then we must have a veritable grab bag of
>eligible sites for the next adventure. The world is full of oppressed
>dictatorial nations, as is that region, and we are even allied with a good
>number of them.

Certainly there are a number of nations that might benefit from
"regime change" but foreign policy is inextricably linked to national
self-interest. While we might not much care what goes on in Liberia or
Myanmar, the stability of the middle-East is clearly within the
interest of America. We pick and choose where we get involved.
Sometimes it is easily and clearly supportable, but more often it will
be dissected in the political process of America's two-party system
and lots of folks will disagree, many for simplistic and even
incorrect reasons.
>
>> .....Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
>> again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
>> beyond Israel.
>
>That's another way of saying that "this is going to hurt you more than it's
>going to hurt me" isn't it? All we have to do is to beat them into stability,
>even if it doesn't suit them.

That's an excellent rhetorical gambit, but what the hell does it mean?
It doesn't at all mean what you've implied. Does improving the
governmental process of an authoritarian nation imply some sort of
punishment? Hardly. For that matter, the birth of the USA was
revolutionary and arguably quite painful. And, it only took us eleven
years after the revolution before we beat out the Constitution that
has worked for the last 216 years.
>>
>> "Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
>> examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?
>
>I confess that I would sooner have them firing their RPGs and detonating their
>land mines when UN forces go by than when the targets are solely American. So,
>if the policy fails, it's a UN policy that fails, and if there are casualties,
>they are UN casualties. Let's face it, we're not in this out of the goodness of
>our national hearts.....we're in it because, whether or not it's yet clear to us
>ordinary Americans, we're going to profit in some way for our involvement.
>Some of us suspect that it won't involve much more than oil or big business in
>some way. In any case, anybody who swallows the proposition that we are
>altruistic in our foreign affairs has got to be the world's most gullible guppy.

That's great reasoning. You first urge us to abandon the region (or
roll back the clock and never have gone in the first place) so that
the "UN handle the mess their way" clearly implying that a UN solution
would be somehow effective, then when pressed seem to admit that the
UN would bugger it up completely, but at least we wouldn't have
responsibility.

Gotta say that while you seem to be ideologically committed, you seem
to be rationality impaired. Your logic doesn't seem to stand up to
scrutiny.

[George Z. Bush]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" wrote:
>
>> Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and
>> my cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll
>> pass on the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing
>> that your guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.
>
> Don't really need a crystal ball do you George?

You having a problem with my English? You don't understand what "I think I'll
pass..." means?
>
> We know what happens when one doesn't stand up to tyranny. We know what
> happens when failure in will (usually always for very good reasons), allows
> darkness to prevail. I think even you'll agree Saddam and Osama are on the
> side of darkness. Removal from Lebanon and Somalia only encouraged the OBL
> crowd. Don't think for a minute they can not win in Iraq. The odds are in
> their favor.

Spoken like a true simplistic idealogue. Everything's black and
white.....everything's so easy to figure out. Sure it is.....and that's why
they having parades for their conquering heroes in Baghdad every day. Sure it
is!
>
> Don't get me wrong. I'm neo-isolationist at heart. I don't think the US
> should ever have been in Lebanon or Somalia, despite honest reasons.
>
> I don't think the US should be in Kosovo or Bosnia, despite images of
> massacred farmers or urbanites of the wrong ethnic persuasion.
>
> But we were there! And once there, to be run out can only be bad. Now,
> like it or not, we're in Iraq, for actually quite fair reasons IMHO.

You were on a roll until you stated our reasons for being there were quite fair.
But, you're entitled to your opinion.
>
> So what's it going to be?
>
> I don't think you need to be a modern day Nostradamus to see any trends
> here do you?

Surely you wouldn't believe what I might have to say, so why don't you enlighten
us with your perceived wisdom?


George Z.

[Stephen Harding]

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" wrote:
> >
> >> Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and
> >> my cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll
> >> pass on the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing
> >> that your guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.
> >
> > Don't really need a crystal ball do you George?
>
> You having a problem with my English? You don't understand what "I think I'll
> pass..." means?

Working hard at being confrontational it seems.

Don't see anything wrong with my reading of what you wrote. Do you understand
what you wrote?

> > We know what happens when one doesn't stand up to tyranny. We know what
> > happens when failure in will (usually always for very good reasons), allows
> > darkness to prevail. I think even you'll agree Saddam and Osama are on the
> > side of darkness. Removal from Lebanon and Somalia only encouraged the OBL
> > crowd. Don't think for a minute they can not win in Iraq. The odds are in
> > their favor.
>
> Spoken like a true simplistic idealogue. Everything's black and
> white.....everything's so easy to figure out. Sure it is.....and that's why
> they having parades for their conquering heroes in Baghdad every day. Sure it
> is!

We can add complexity to the point we no longer can tell anything. Your choice.
You think there are shades of complexity coming from the Taliban? From the
Baathists? From the generic Arab world?

You'd better figure out what is black and white and toss the gray or you'll
be living by someone else's definition of it.

> > Don't get me wrong. I'm neo-isolationist at heart. I don't think the US
> > should ever have been in Lebanon or Somalia, despite honest reasons.
> >
> > I don't think the US should be in Kosovo or Bosnia, despite images of
> > massacred farmers or urbanites of the wrong ethnic persuasion.
> >
> > But we were there! And once there, to be run out can only be bad. Now,
> > like it or not, we're in Iraq, for actually quite fair reasons IMHO.
>
> You were on a roll until you stated our reasons for being there were quite fair.
> But, you're entitled to your opinion.

Well your open-mindedness spilleth over.

> > So what's it going to be?
> >
> > I don't think you need to be a modern day Nostradamus to see any trends
> > here do you?
>
> Surely you wouldn't believe what I might have to say, so why don't you enlighten
> us with your perceived wisdom?

You've already stated your poor opinion of my wisdom. Saying anything more is a
waste of typing muscles.


SMH

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > "George Z. Bush" wrote:
> >>
> >> Stephen Harding wrote:
> >>> Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
> >>> Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
> >>> improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).
> >>
> >> Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for
> >> any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of
> >> the
> >
> > Then I don't think you're being politically realistic.
> >
> > While I don't believe our Senators and Representatives *want* more US
> > casualties to help attain their political goals, the parties most certainly
> > do make plans based on how certain issues/problems play out. Dems will be
> > favored if Iraq
> > is seen as a "quagmire", just as they'll be helped if the economy stays stale.
> >
> >> Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
> >> allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
> >> reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we
> >> would have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead
> >> of going it alone.
> >
> > In hindsight, when car bombs are exploding along NYC or DC streets on a fairly
> > regular basis, we'll see the Iraqi effort was cheap compared to having it all
> > happen at home.
> >
> > We'll see very clearly the lesson of dropping the ball in Iraq because it
> > "wasn't worth it" was extremely short sighted.
> >
> > The terrorists will learn that OBL was right! Americans are paper tigers
> > without the will to see difficult objectives through to their completion.
> > Car bombs worked in Lebanon. They worked in Mogadishu. They worked in Iraq.
> > They'll work anywhere against US interests, and they'll even work in NYC and
> > LA.
> >
> > This all won't come to pass the day after we depart Iraq in defeat, but I
> > believe it will come.
>
> Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
> cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll pass on
> the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing that your
> guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

And your guess would presumably therefore be that if we ticked tail
and skedaddled out of Iraq pronto things would be just peachy?
Otherwise, what are you arguing with here?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
> >
> >
> > SMH

[Kevin Brooks]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
> >American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the
> >Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
> >allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
> >reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
> >have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
> >it alone.
> >
> >George Z.
> >
>
> Had a student in my American Gov't class last week, an Iraqi Freedom
> vet, Marine. He indicated the intent not to vote for Bush' reelection,
> although when pressed, he couldn't find any identification with the
> opposition other than his disappointment in the "quagmire" of Iraq.
>
> I asked him if he knew where the metaphor originated, and, being a
> modern American product of our educational system, he did not. I
> explained that David Halberstam had written "Making of a Quagmire"
> more than five YEARS after the start of full-blown US/NVN hostilities.
> I pointed out that Iraqi Freedom lasted five WEEKS, and the rebuilding
> phase has been going on for less than five MONTHS. Hardly "bogged
> down" at this point, although the potential exists.
>
> Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
> aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
> was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder. It was
> eighteen months until George Marshall's genius of rebuilding rather
> than punishing ala Versailles began to create the stable, economically
> powerful Germany and post-war Europe.

Good analogy.

>
> We live in a "USA Today/MTV" sort of world in which resolution must
> occur within seconds or we jump cut to the next suggestive video
> segment.

Exactly, and well put.

>
> "Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
> bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
> one. Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
> again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
> beyond Israel.
>
> "Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
> examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?

Somalia? Nope...

Brooks

[George Z. Bush]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:23:17 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good
>>>> for any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including
>>>> members of the Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to
>>>> regret that our nation allowed itself to get involved in this military
>>>> adventure for non-existent reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we
>>>> may someday conclude that we would have been better off letting the UN
>>>> handle the mess their way, instead of going it alone.
>>>>
>>>> George Z.
>>>>
>>
>> (Snip)
>>
>>> Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
>>> aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
>>> was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder.
>>
>> I was in Italy until June 1946 and, other than the presence of some refugees,
>> there was little looting, sniping or disorder visible to the naked eye.
>> Maybe the birthplace of the Mafia was more law abiding than was defeated
>> Germany, but I didn't see the things you inferred were endemic. And I do
>> not remember any reports of ongoing resistance to the end of the war in
>> Germany as is apparently in progress in Iraq today. There may have been
>> isolated instances of rifle fire but nothing more.
>
> There's a whole big mountain range between Italy and central Europe.

Yes, they're called the Alps, and they do indeed separate Italy from the rest of
Europe, but no more so than the same mountains separated Austria from the rest
of Europe. Anyway, we were talking about Europe, and not a specific part of it.

> The war rolled through Italy a year and a half before Germany
> collapsed.....

My unit was staging for an airborne invasion of the Po Valley in the Spring of
'45, which was about the time that Germany collapsed. I wonder why nobody told
us that the war was over so that we might have been able to save the lives of
the guys in our unit who were killed in an accident by a battle damaged B-17
that crash landed at our staging base and ran into a couple of our airplanes.

> ......and the level of destruction as Berlin was caught between
> the two oncoming armies from East and West was considerably different
> than Italy.

I guess you've never seen what the Anzio beachhead or the abbey at Montecassino
looked like, but I can tell you that Italian rubble looks just like German or
any other kind of rubble. You're probably right about the fact that the Battle
of Berlin produced a monumental amount of municipal rubble, while the rubble in
Italy was more rural in character and took a lot more time to produce than the
battle for Berlin did.
>>
(Snip)

>>> "Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
>>> bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
>>> one.
>>
>> If that's a reason to go to war, then we must have a veritable grab bag of
>> eligible sites for the next adventure. The world is full of oppressed
>> dictatorial nations, as is that region, and we are even allied with a good
>> number of them.
>
> Certainly there are a number of nations that might benefit from
> "regime change" but foreign policy is inextricably linked to national
> self-interest. While we might not much care what goes on in Liberia or
> Myanmar, the stability of the middle-East is clearly within the
> interest of America. We pick and choose where we get involved.
> Sometimes it is easily and clearly supportable, but more often it will
> be dissected in the political process of America's two-party system
> and lots of folks will disagree, many for simplistic and even
> incorrect reasons.
>>
>>> .....Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
>>> again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
>>> beyond Israel.
>>
>> That's another way of saying that "this is going to hurt you more than it's
>> going to hurt me" isn't it? All we have to do is to beat them into
>> stability, even if it doesn't suit them.
>
> That's an excellent rhetorical gambit, but what the hell does it mean?
> It doesn't at all mean what you've implied. Does improving the
> governmental process of an authoritarian nation imply some sort of
> punishment? Hardly. For that matter, the birth of the USA was
> revolutionary and arguably quite painful. And, it only took us eleven
> years after the revolution before we beat out the Constitution that
> has worked for the last 216 years.
>>>
>>> "Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
>>> examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?
>>
>> I confess that I would sooner have them firing their RPGs and detonating
>> their land mines when UN forces go by than when the targets are solely
>> American. So, if the policy fails, it's a UN policy that fails, and if
>> there are casualties, they are UN casualties. Let's face it, we're not in
>> this out of the goodness of our national hearts.....we're in it because,
>> whether or not it's yet clear to us ordinary Americans, we're going to
>> profit in some way for our involvement. Some of us suspect that it won't
>> involve much more than oil or big business in some way. In any case,
>> anybody who swallows the proposition that we are altruistic in our foreign
>> affairs has got to be the world's most gullible guppy.
>
> That's great reasoning. You first urge us to abandon the region (or
> roll back the clock and never have gone in the first place) so that
> the "UN handle the mess their way" clearly implying that a UN solution
> would be somehow effective, then when pressed seem to admit that the
> UN would bugger it up completely, but at least we wouldn't have
> responsibility.

It's somewhat better than your reasoning in that you assumed something (and you
know what happens when you assume) that I never ever said. I think that for us
to pull out of Iraq would be a disaster for our national interests and a total
waste of the human, materiel and fiscal assets we've expended on it so far. In
point of fact, I was merely using my super-perfect 20-20 hindsight in
envisioning how the problem might have developed had we chosen to pursue some
role other than that of Rambo.
>
> Gotta say that while you seem to be ideologically committed, you seem
> to be rationality impaired. Your logic doesn't seem to stand up to
> scrutiny.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. I don't think too much of the logic of you
knee-jerk idealogues, either. However, I must say in closing how much I admire
your arrogance in sitting in judgment of my ability to rationalize and exercise
logic. Are you sure you don't have a strain of Israeli chutzpah hidden in your
familial background somewhere? (^-^)))

You don't have to answer that, it being just a rhetorical question. Does
answering one's own question stand up to your logical scrutiny? Oh, well.

George Z.

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

>...foreign policy is inextricably linked to national self-interest.

Absolutely...and often for a small segment of a nation's electorate
(or economy), e.g. current US steel tariffs and resulting WTO
sanctions.

>We pick and choose where we get involved.

Yep.

>Sometimes it is easily and clearly supportable, but more often it will
>be dissected in the political process of America's two-party system
>and lots of folks will disagree, many for simplistic and even
>incorrect reasons.

And the corollary, "lots of folks will agree, many for simplistic and
even incorrect reasons." C'est vrai?

[responding to GZB's remarks about UN vice US troops being the
predominant force of occupation in Iraq]

>That's great reasoning. You first urge us to abandon the region (or
>roll back the clock and never have gone in the first place) so that
>the "UN handle the mess their way" clearly implying that a UN solution
>would be somehow effective, then when pressed seem to admit that the
>UN would bugger it up completely, but at least we wouldn't have
>responsibility.

Respectfully, I inferred that however messy the process is, it would
be more palatable if the UN community had been the driving force (with
shared risks). It's only natural to prefer that your boys and girls
are not the ones getting killed.

GZB's comments sound perfectly logical.

>Gotta say that while you seem to be ideologically committed, you seem
>to be rationality impaired. Your logic doesn't seem to stand up to
>scrutiny.

Sure it does. The "facts" enumerated by our president as the reason to
invade Iraq (without the aid of major allies in the UN) now appear to
be more ambiguous, with the notable exception that Saddam Hussein is a
ruthless **** that needs to die.

It would *appear* that the CIA's current estimate of the situation in
Iraq is incongruous with Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, or GWB's more positive
assessment.

I too wish the UN had a greater role in the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. **** happens...now I hope we can turn Iraq over to the owners
ASAP.

Juvat

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 11/12/03 12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time

>My unit was staging for an airborne invasion of the Po Valley in the Spring
>of
>'45, which was about the time that Germany collapsed. I wonder why nobody
>told

We, the 344th attacked the Po Valley in 1945 hitting a Panzer division below.
It's a good thing you guys didn't drop in. If the Panzers didn't get you, we
would have.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[funkraum]

> "George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:

[...]
>> Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
>> aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
>> was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder.
>
>I was in Italy until June 1946 and, other than the presence of some refugees,
>there was little looting, sniping or disorder visible to the naked eye. Maybe
>the birthplace of the Mafia was more law abiding than was defeated Germany, but
>I didn't see the things you inferred were endemic. And I do not remember any
>reports of ongoing resistance to the end of the war in Germany as is apparently
>in progress in Iraq today. There may have been isolated instances of rifle
>fire, but nothing more.
[...]


+ No incentive to attack US forces as heavy-handed response resulted

+ Occasionally, some young nimrod would take a shot at occupying
troops. Noteworthy by its infrequency.

+ Possession of a firearm a serious advance which would land you in a
KZ

+ Levels of lawlessness, banditry, etc, all depended on region.

+ Northern Italy/Yugoslav border, southern Austria, bandits, either
Italian or Balkan, or 'Balkan Blend'. Necessary to be armed when
travelling through some of NE Italy.

+ Most lawlessness directed at obtaining goods. For instance, an
entire train was held up by the Mafia north of Naples somewhere.

+ Berlin there were even gangs of deserters from the Allied armies
doing hold-ups of convoys, trains and shooting it out with MPs

+ Lots of murders among black marketeers. The voiceover at the
beginning of the "The Third Man" shows one of the 'amateurs' floating
in the Danube.

+ Austria, some un-surrendered troops surviving in the mountains.

+ Porous 'borders' with Austria/Czechia/Hungaria meant Soviet and
freelance kidnap gangs roamed at will, as did assassination teams.

+ Nazi smugglers, Zionist terrorist gangs, Jew smugglers all operated
down through the Alps to Italian ports.

+ French occupation troops in the French zone of Austria specialised
in rape

+ No incentive to get the Allies out since if the Allies left the
Soviets would take over. Plus none of the candy-ass
pussyfooting-around over "cultural sensitivity". Anyone in custody was
given a "culturally appropriate" meal consisting of ..... a lot more
calories than most people were getting on the outside and had the
baton applied to them in a "culturally appropriate" manner should
their behaviour merit such.

+If none of this was found to be to taste, you could always cross to
the Soviet zone.

+ Some areas there was no 'border' imposed, as such, you just crossed.
However, on attempting to return, one found there was indeed a
'border'.


The big advantage enjoyed by post-war Allied occupiers was that Uncle
Joe was right next door. This focused everyone's attention on what was
waiting for them if the Allies decided to go home.