Bush needs to clean up his mess

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

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

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

Ricardo wrote:

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

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

:Most recent news on the subject:
:
:http://www.informationclearinghouse....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?

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

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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Vince wrote:

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

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

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

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

Feh!

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

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Vince wrote:

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

Vince

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

Vince

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

So we could still be there today, eh?

No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
"negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
example.


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


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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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


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


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_V...lic_of_Vietnam

Scroll down to "politics"





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

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

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

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




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


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

Sounds like an honest estimation of a major foreign policy task.

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

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

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

Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which
indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"?
Increasingly al-Queda's point has been to foment violence between
Muslims rather than against coalition forces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still remember "duck and cover" drills from second grade. Do you?

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






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

Ok let's hear your numbers VBG


Still waiting for your numbers




Apples and oranges, Ed


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

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

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

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

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

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

And, I think that it is impossible to define exactly how much time
will be needed for a complicated task. There can be goals, but a fixed
calendar date is impossible.

I heven't even seen a roadmap with goals yet



Hey you playing with the Windows VISTA beta yet?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:05:17 -0400, Vince wrote:

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

Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and
it
doesn't wash now.

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


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

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

It sounds like you found a term and are dedicated to making it apply.
The conspiracy theory for Germany doesn't hold much water for WW I or
II and it doesn't get traction for the US experience in SEA.

It's precisely on point to your claim that:

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

and

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

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

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

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

Not many proponents except possibly on the fringe who suspect some
sort of conspiracy or betrayal. It goes a lot deeper than that.

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

And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
(and hence Marxist prone) north.

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

You probably didn't get the view of Hanoi, Haiphong, Thai Nguyen, Cam
Pha, Viet Tri, Pho Tho, and other urban areas that I did.


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

Ah yes, more dolchstoss

None of the sort. Politicians seldom transcend the base selfishness of
the re-election motive. One need only examine the tax structure of the
US and the redistribution schemes of the IRS to see proof of catering
to the majority of the electorate. Welfare sells for votes


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

My take on taxes is short and sweet

Taxes = Budget


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


Bush got elected by a lot of sheep



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

great excuse when you've lost a war.

A fairly anecdotal and arguably revisionist view of the seeds of
Nazism. One might look at the reparations of Versaille as a more
concrete causative factor.



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

Like avoiding 50,000 plus dead Americans?

The number is a bit over 58,000, but why quibble. Better for the
nation would be winning conflicts decisively as quickly as possible.
Better for the nation is doing what needs to be done before the nation
suffers another terrorist attack of the magnitude of 9/11. Better for
the nation is a stable Middle East (rather than an abandoned one under
control of the jihadists.)

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

I'm sure the latter is higher.



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

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

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


I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War.

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

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

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

The duplicity of
the US government,

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

the a lack of a meaningful game plan for
Vietnamization ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seemed to work for you. I served with a large number of "rich,
well-born" and decidedly "able" folks in combat.

That canard about who went to war and who went to the Guard has been
discussed at length in R.A.M. Flying single seat, single engine
tactical jets for 4.5 years

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

trumps driving a fishing boat upriver for
six months

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


and then calling everyone you served with a war criminal in
the balance of most of the folks I deal with.


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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Vince wrote:

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

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

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

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

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



Feh!

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