GAO Report: GA Security Threat

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Rich,

We won in Iraq,

Have you been following the news lately, at all?

Errr, yeah... have you? We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies. I
think it's safe to say we "won" there, too (though not nearly as
easily and with many, many more lives lost).

But I suppose as long as there are a couple thousand Baathists who
hate us, there are those who will claim that we "failed"...

.... or maybe you really DO think the world was a better place with
Saddam in power???

Mark Hickey

John,

Have you been following the news lately, at all?

Are you trying to make a point?


Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
last checked.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mark,

We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies.

I don't think that comparison is valid in any way. There are no
parallels to the situation. But while we're on the subject of
timetables: The comparison to Vietnam and the timetable there is left
as an excerise to the reader...

.... or maybe you really DO think the world was a better place with
Saddam in power???


I think the world was a better place when the most powerful nation on
earth adhered to certain rules that had become standard between
civilized nations.

I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
to believe. There are no WMD, period.

I am also certain that the path of actions the US took, if anything,
will provoke more and more terrible acts of terrorism than any of the
possible alternatives.

But that's just me...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
last checked.

You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many Germans and
Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war. Reconstruction
of the defeated countries and reformation of their governments and
infrastructure took years and a tremendous financial commitment. Much of
that investment was never repaid, even though the major Axis powers are now
well in the black.

It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time studying
the real world.

Regards,
Rich S.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...

. . . I think the world was a better place when the most powerful nation
on
earth adhered to certain rules that had become standard between
civilized nations.

I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
to believe. There are no WMD, period. . .

Since this is an inappropriate forum for this topic - and since I don't
approve of crossposting, I will let this be my last word in this thread.

Iraq under Saddam was not abiding by international law. In the terms of
their surrender in the Gulf War, they agreed to disarm and to prove they had
done so. Their refusal to comply with those terms resulted in the resumption
of hostilities to force compliance. The existance or non-existance of WMD
has no bearing on the situation.

You have the floor.......

Rich S.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:00:02 -0800, "Rich S."
wrote:

You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many Germans and
Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war. Reconstruction
of the defeated countries and reformation of their governments and
infrastructure took years and a tremendous financial commitment. Much of
that investment was never repaid, even though the major Axis powers are now
well in the black.

It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time studying
the real world.

Regards,
Rich S.

Rich, I've been reading military history since I first started reading
some 45 or so years ago and I'll be darned if I can recall reading
much about post WWII battles with soldiers who refused to surrender.
Can you give me a citation or two?

I know some fanatical Japanese wanted to stage a coup after the
Emperor announced the surrender, but that didn't happen. I recall
reading about one P-38 pilot who landed in Japan shortly after the
announcement that Japan had surrendered, only to be politely told by
the Japanese at that airfield that while Japan may have surrendered,
the papers had not yet been signed so the war wasn't actually over
yet. He was allowed to board his fighter and takeoff.

There was the odd Japanese soldier here and there stuck out in some
jungle wilderness who continued to hide, but for the most part they
did not fight, they just hid.

Thanks, Corky Scott

"Rich S." wrote in message


It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time
studying the real world.

Not to mention learning what's happening in Iraq. "Good news is no news."

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Thomas Borchert wrote:

John,


Have you been following the news lately, at all?

Are you trying to make a point?



Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
last checked.

No, it's just that your standard of acceptable information needs some
fine-tuning. Instead of buying into the Six O'clock Follies as the SOLE
source, do some checking. HOW many thousands of US personnel are in
Iraq? All you hear about are the handful who die.

Well, guess what? Servicemen die in the US, too. Helicopters crash in
the US too. And there are Army bases whose commanders have had to order
troops not to wear uniforms offbase because the locals don't treat the
military well.

.. . .and there's no war going on here, is there?

Thomas Borchert wrote:


I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing

No, but there are a lot of Iraqis who do.

(he isn't, really, by the way).

Then where is he?

I am now absolutely certain - as most news
watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
to believe.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

There are no WMD, period.

Then where did they all go? Or were the UN and Clintoons lying when
they said he had them for all those years?


I am also certain that the path of actions the US took, if anything,
will provoke more and more terrible acts of terrorism than any of the
possible alternatives.

You base this on what experience, training or inspiration?

You admit that you get your information from the news. You know nothing
that doesn't fit between the tampon commercial and the ad for kitty litter.


But that's just me...

Yeah, that's right.

Rich S. wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...


Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
last checked.


You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII.

It wasn't on ABC, so he doesn't believe it really happened.