Embedded

Subject: Embedded
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 10/4/03 12:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

From: "John Mullen" no@


That might be because WW2 was a war worth fighting.

But they are still our troops. And in the case of the reservists and guards,
they are our neighbors, the guys who put out your garage fire and issue you
burn permits, who check to see if your house is okay when you're on vacation,
and work the jaws of life and extract your highschooler from his wrecked
Camaro
and give him emergency medical aid as they rush him to the hospital...they
are
*us.*

As far as the war being worth fighting, I was sort of reluctantly for it,
knowing that something has got to be done about the whole middle east sooner
or
later, and sooner will be easier than later, and Iraq is probably as good a
place to start as any.
I did read a very good argument for not having invaded Iraq from Bernard
Henri-Levy (author of the excellent "Barbarism With A Human Face"), who
described Iraq as "yesterday's enemy" along with Libya and Cuba, while
today's
real, serious enemies are in order, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. About
Pakistan he said, "the stench of the apocolypse hovers over it." His view is
that we should have moved from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Sounds like a
plan,
but doubtless much, much easier said than done. And, of course, just who is
this "we"? The USA alone, or all the west and western allies such as Japan
combined? If the latter, exorcizing Pakistan might be doable; if just the US
alone or with a handful of allies...I sure wouldn't be first in line to urge
my
country to do that.
And Saudi Arabia? Yemen, maybe we could do something there, but the
Saudis--what do we do there? Every body has a solution when sitting around
the
backyard barbeque sipping beer, but really, what do you do...what do you do?


Chris Mark


I think WW II was worth fighting. in fact it had to be fought. I am not so
sure about Iraq. My doubts run quite deep.And it is the same "US" that fought
in WW II that are now fighting in Iraq. It is always "US"

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

From: artkramr@

I am not so
sure about Iraq. My doubts run quite deep.

Bernard Hernri-Levy's argument that Iraq was already checkmated and impotent
before the war, seem pretty sound. Of course it was the US and Britain who
were doing the checkmating afaik, and not anybody else, and there is the
argument that the situation was ultimately untenable, UN sanctions would be
lifted, the no-fly zones would go away, that Saddam's successor might be even
worse and have vast and dangerous ambitions. Who knows?

The main thing that concerns me now, the war being an accomplished fact,
however you felt about it, is the apparent poor and biased reporting coming out
of Iraq, reporting that does not jibe at all with the stories I hear from the
people who were and are actually there now.
Even the Brookings Institution (no member of the vast right wing conspiracy
they) has had some kind things to say about the current situation there.
Click the link:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030930.htm

to go to a "what I did on my vacation" report (nothing deep) from a Brookings
senior fellow on his trip to Iraq last week. We are not in the deep do-do, the
media insists we are.



Chris Mark

Forgot this link, as well:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030929.htm

which gives a more studied look at the current situation, and should please
anti-Bu****es (and cause pro-Bu****es to choke on their Wheaties) with phrases
such as "unilateralist rush to war," but is nonetheless quite positive about
the situation, while giving a good thumbnail description of the lay of the
land.


Chris Mark

which gives a more studied look at the current situation, and should please
anti-Bu****es (and cause pro-Bu****es to choke on their Wheaties) with phrases
such as "unilateralist rush to war," but is nonetheless quite positive about
the situation, while giving a good thumbnail description of the lay of the
land.

Shucks, I suppose I'm a pro-Bu****e. But I regarded it as a rush to
war, and it was of course unilaterla, or at least bilateral.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Subject: Embedded
From: Cub Driver
Date: 10/5/03 3:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


which gives a more studied look at the current situation, and should please
anti-Bu****es (and cause pro-Bu****es to choke on their Wheaties) with
phrases
such as "unilateralist rush to war," but is nonetheless quite positive about
the situation, while giving a good thumbnail description of the lay of the
land.

Shucks, I suppose I'm a pro-Bu****e. But I regarded it as a rush to
war, and it was of course unilaterla, or at least bilateral.


all the best -- Dan Ford

We have men dying every day. Is it worth it?

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

(ArtKramr) wrote:

We have men dying every day. Is it worth it?

We have hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians *not* dying every day, and
a large number of fairly monstrous assholes who are really, most
sincerely dead.

It is.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: Chad Irby cir

(ArtKramr) wrote:

We have men dying every day. Is it worth it?

We have hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians *not* dying every day, and
a large number of fairly monstrous assholes who are really, most
sincerely dead.

The "men dying every day, is it worth it" mantra is the fraidy cat school of
foreign policy embraced by the isolationist left and locked onto by the news
media. "Another GI dies in attack by Iraqi guerillas" is the lead (following
the mode of the latter Vietnam war) , not "Six enemy die-hards killed in
firefight. One of our servicemen also perished." (the WW2 style of reporting).

That argument essentially urges us to cut and run. If we keep doing that,
especially after we kick ass militarily, we might as well simply abolish our
armed forces, replace the Pentagon with an answering machine saying, "To whom
it may concern: Yes, we really are very, very bad. Everything is our fault.
We surrender and throw ourselves upon your mercy, but don't be too kind to us,
because we deserve to be punished."



Chris Mark

Bernard Hernri-Levy's argument that Iraq was already checkmated and impotent
before the war, seem pretty sound. Of course it was the US and Britain who
were doing the checkmating afaik, and not anybody else, and there is the

I'm still scratching my head over Saddam's treatment of the weapons
inspectors. If he had simply cooperated with them, and especially if
he hadn't dumped that absurd multi-million-page compliance document on
the UN, the U.S. would have found it impossible to make the case for
invasion.

Again, Time magazine and all the rest can trust the short memories of
the public to forget all that stone-walling.

argument that the situation was ultimately untenable, UN sanctions would be
lifted, the no-fly zones would go away, that Saddam's successor might be even
worse and have vast and dangerous ambitions. Who knows?

There is still the point that we made the point: it's not safe to
knock over the World Trade Center. Further, it's not safe to do
business with Bin Laden.

Again--short memories! That Al Qaeda is for all practical purposes
impotent will be overlooked. It's like the fall of the Soviet empire
in 1990. That it fell is simply regarded as proof that it never was a
threat.

Don't worry, Art! They'll rewrite the history of WWII as well, the
minute the last vet is gone.

The main thing that concerns me now, the war being an accomplished fact,
however you felt about it, is the apparent poor and biased reporting coming out
of Iraq, reporting that does not jibe at all with the stories I hear from the
people who were and are actually there now.
Even the Brookings Institution (no member of the vast right wing conspiracy
they) has had some kind things to say about the current situation there.
Click the link:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030930.htm

to go to a "what I did on my vacation" report (nothing deep) from a Brookings
senior fellow on his trip to Iraq last week. We are not in the deep do-do, the
media insists we are.

Thanks for the pointer, Chris.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Subject: Embedded
From: ost (Chris Mark)
Date: 10/4/03 1:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

We are not in the deep do-do, the
media insists we are.



Chris Mark

Define deep do-do. No WMD. No connection to WTC. Young Americans are dying.
It'll cost a billion before it is all over. And no sign of the imminent
threat from Iraq. The picture is less than rosy. It is hard not to question the
administrations judgement under these conditions.

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

From: artkramr@

Define deep do-do

Not facing a guerilla war. Not facing a hostile population on the verge of a
national uprising against US presence. Not even close to "another
Vietnam"--not that I ever thought that Vietnam was a "Vietnam."

And no sign of the imminent
threat from Iraq.

That is one of Bernard Henri-Levi's key points. He agrees that invading Iraq
was right morally--to depose an odious dictator, period. But it was wrong
politically and strategically because it took our eyes off the main threat
which is principally to the US, but in the long run to all of Western
civilization. This threat--and it is a very, very serious one--in his view
emanates from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent from Yemen.
Now the US is tied up with Iraq, there is no solid allied front against radical
Islam in the West...and the most violent and devastating attacks against the
West are building towards their inevitable execution while the West and its
sole remaining paladin (I *love* that description of the US--especially coming
from a Frenchman!) squabble among themselves and focus on the wrong enemy.

It sure would have been nice if the US and Europe (and even Japan, Thailand and
other Asian nations) could have sat down together and planned out how to
counter this real challenge to our civilization and acted together to defeat
it. If Pakistan was determined to be the real core that needed to be taken on,
I would love to have seen French and German troops attacking alongside US,
British and Aussie forces.
Somehow we have messed up this defense of the West. i don't see it as solely
the fault of Bush. The French certainly were confrontational when they
probably could have been more effective as concerned but cooperating friends.
The Germans weren't much better....well, we all know how things have played out
among the allies.

It is hard not to question the
administrations judgement under these conditions.

I don't believe there has ever been an administration whose judgements I
haven't questioned; that's part of being a concerned citizen.
I tend to see Bush as like Truman in a number of ways, both in his personality,
his previous political experience, his unexpected ascension to power, the way
the press treats him and especially in the huge and unexpected foreign policy
threats he faces, threats that will not only define his presidency and his
place in history, but will change the direction of US and world history for
decades to come.


Chris Mark