Bush needs to clean up his mess

"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"

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....ticle11674.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 ..."

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

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....ticle13637.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....ticle11674.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 ..."

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

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

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

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

"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.

"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