If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
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? 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. 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? 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? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
"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? 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. 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. 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? I Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
In message , Ed Rasimus
writes 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. In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity, and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North Vietnam successfully attacked. Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different. This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with. Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly. And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors: embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to become evangelists for "where do we get these men?". Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer. Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"? The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small, because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not aware of any such being constructed) 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. They're valid if you include responses like "should leave once the security situation is stabilised" and other such conditional responses. Indeed, very few Iraqis indeed want Coalition Forces to remain indefinitely. The Iraqis really do want us to leave... but many of them don't want us to leave _now_, they'd like us to leave "as soon as practical", with a big spread on what "practical" means. -- Paul J. Adam |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:47:06 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity, and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North Vietnam successfully attacked. Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different. If there is a parallel between Vietnam and Iraq this is it. In both instances the "pundits" and a substantial portion of the "taste makers" were able to woo the minions of the Fourth Estate and convince them, and then many others, that military success was "impossible." That was a Big Lie, but like many Big Lies, succeeded because it was so big (a perverse application of the "too big to fail" theory?). This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with. Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly. It might have been Mark Twain who said, "Never pick a fight with somebody who buys printer's ink by the barrel." And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors: embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to become evangelists for "where do we get these men?". True. But you've got to get to the editorial and opinion writers, too. Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer. Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"? The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small, because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not aware of any such being constructed) You crawl before you walk; you walk before you run; you run before you fly. ;-) 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. They're valid if you include responses like "should leave once the security situation is stabilised" and other such conditional responses. Indeed, very few Iraqis indeed want Coalition Forces to remain indefinitely. Give me some time and money and I'll produce a poll that says the the Urth is flat, hollow, and the center of the universe. The Iraqis really do want us to leave... but many of them don't want us to leave _now_, they'd like us to leave "as soon as practical", with a big spread on what "practical" means. Indeed. Bill Kambic Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
In article , Paul J. Adam
wrote: In message , Ed Rasimus writes 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. In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity, and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North Vietnam successfully attacked. Well, yes. It's that "attention deficit" again. Something that US allies have learned to worry about. For a distressingly long time. Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different. Hmmm. Yes, but. At the risk of pushing this more-than-somewhat OT topic into an arid wilderness, we are faced with the fait accompli of the destruction of the liberal arts education in the US and much of the anglosphere in favour of some kind of bizarre, historically-ignorant, posturing self-loathing that passes for "the Left". Which has gained itself a stranglehold, a bit like Russian ivy, all over the bloody place, especially the meeja. Me, when I need leftwing guidance, I ask myself what Lenin would have done. The answer rarely involves gender politics or queer studies, but tends towards, shall we say, more robust solutions. From which, as the most liberal and tolerant of men, I am usually obliged to distance myself. Still, it's always there as a thought. This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with. Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly. Another "yes, but." The thing I can't forgive the meeja (by which I mean overwhelmingly tv) is their utter incapacity to avoid telling lies. Indeed, their complete epistemological inability to tell one from the other: only what makes "good" tv and what does not. They're quite smart at that. From bitter personal experience, I'd never give a tv interview unless it was live: they will cut you up into what they fancy in the editing room, every time. Reminds me of the fable of the frog and the scorpion. Indeed (well, I *was* speaking of Lenin) the most effective revolutionary act I can think of in 2006 is to blow up every television transmitter and send ballbearings into reverse Clarke orbit. And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors: embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to become evangelists for "where do we get these men?". Yes, but. Or, in this instance, perhaps, "but, yet." Embedded journalists, though, are rarely of the Looneymouth Flakjacket persuasion, broadcasting with authority in a shirt of many pockets not too dangerously far from a well-supplied bar. As for tv "journalism": "Does my bum look big in this?" is its only honest contribution to anything. Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer. Thankless in success, worse in failure. rest snipped, all good points with which I more or less entirely agree. -- "The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun My .mac.com address is a spam sink. If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
Paul J. Adam wrote: ... Where has any official policy been annunciated at any time which indicated an intent to establish "Permanent bases in Iraq"? The withdrawal of MND(SE) forces from al-Muthanna province and the handover there to Iraqi security is a small point of support. (Small, because al-Muthanna is large, empty and quiet and hence suitable for an early handover - though a cynic would say that's exactly the sort of place the Evil US would _want_ a huge military complex put, and I'm not aware of any such being constructed) Personally, I expect the Kurds would be happy to have a nice big premanent American base right up by the Turkish border. Off-hand I would have no objections either. -- FF |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Bush needs to clean up his mess
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 ... 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? 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. 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.) 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. 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? 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 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. 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 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... Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American nazi pond scum, version two | bushite kills bushite | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 21st 04 10:46 PM |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
God Honest | Naval Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 04:45 AM |