"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