Current Count - As Of 10/18/05

Page 2 of 5  

Then what the Fuck are you posting here for?!
Tom Watson wrote:

--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:07:35 -0700, Joseph Connors

Why it has everything to do with woodworking, Their building pine boxes by thousands in Iraq
Ed USMC I fought for the right to question authority
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@no.com wrote:

Beautiful! That's one of the best comebacks I've seen on Usenet.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have to admit, its a great comeback!
Larry Blanchard wrote:

--
Joseph Connors
The New Golden Rule:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks, Tom. That is some really useful information. Keep it up.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

so the was was a success, eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@all.costs wrote:

just about 100 to 1 , now if we can get it to say 1000 to 1 even better
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you misunderstand. the purpose of war is to kill people. this war has succeeded about 30,000 times so far.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@all.costs (in snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com) said:
| the purpose of war is to kill people. this war has succeeded about | 30,000 times so far.
I know you know better - but young readers may not.
The purpose of war is to impose one's political will on others by force - usually (but not necessarily) following failure to convince the other side through diplomacy or negotiation.
The purpose of violence in combat is to remove the opponents' will and capacity to continue the fight before one has expended one's own resources - by inflicting casualties (which does not mean the same thing as causing death) and by destroying the opponents' military resources.
Killing is sometimes necessary; but it's undesirable. Combat eventually ceases; and unnecessary killing produces long-term reactions that make peace difficult and expensive to achieve. Consider the former Yugoslav Republic; and how long the healing there will take (and why).
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tom Watson wrote:

Aw, c'mon, Tom. It's not bad enough that the neo-cons get all stirred up about ID, now you have to enrage them by suggesting that their born-again leader may have made a mistake :-).
And did you see the current news report that says Bush knew in 2003 that Rowe outed the CIA agent?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19 Oct 2005, Tom Watson noted:

At the current pace, by the end of his presidency George W. Bush will have been responsible for far more American deaths than the 9/11 hijackers.
For a guy who claims to do a lot of praying, you have to wonder just exactly what God is trying to tell him, dontcha?
Scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Liberals can only hope.

Just in case we want to inject some actual facts into this thread, here's another count.
US Senators authorizing war against Iraq: 77 (even Kerry voted for it, before he voted against it) US Senators voting against: 23
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My factoid: I would have voted for the authority to go to war. The implicit condition is that the reasons for going to war do indeed exist. In addition, I had some trepidations before Bush went to war: There was no plan to organize civil authority (this is very, very bad) after liberating Iraq from Hussain (a good thing). Why not? No one was able to get the exiled Kurd parties (certainly more than 1), and the exiled shiites and sunnis to agree on anything.
There was no agreement with Turkey on the status of "Kurdistan". The Turks would have liked to annex all and suppress everything Kurdish, an obvious nono from the point of view of most people. Not enough diplomacy to get at least a bit closer to an agreement. Result, there was no Northern front, allowing the "rebels" to organize much quicker and better.
There was no exit strategy, and there still isn't.
What should have been done: Isolate Iraq better. The oil for food program was a joke. Support indiginous opposition, covert ops to get rid of Hussain and his lieutenants.
Really make Afghanistan into a selfsufficient democratic (sort of) state with lots of foreign aid to help the people there out of the devastation of their civil wars. Contain (if not eradicate) their opium poppies. Control the power of the war lords. Make Afghanistan an example.
This has nothing to do with wood. Bush isn't substantial enough.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

Do you have any real evidence that the post-invasion developements are substantialy different from what the administration expected?
Do you really think an exit strategy was a concern, given that Bush will be ineligible to the Presidency after January, 2009?
Do you not think he anticipated a major military presence in Iraq for the remainder of his Presidency? Do you think he ares anymore about what happens in Iraq after he leaves office than his father did about Somalia? If his successor pulls out of a rapidly deteriorating situation and Iraq lapses into civil war it will be his successor who gets blamed, GWB will still be the liberator of Iraq.
I submit it was people who thought Bush was expecting less bloodshed or a more rapid transition to a peaceful and prosperous Iraq who were naive, not the administration.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21 Oct 2005 12:40:44 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote:

I don't really understand the "exit strategy" comments. You exit when everything is done. You only talk about exit strategy when you are losing. What was the exit strategy in WWII or WWI or the Spanish American War or the Civil War or 1812 or the Revolution, etc. The only wars where an exit strategy was discussed we lost - Korea and Vietnam or we gave away - Gulf I. Winning is an acceptable "exit strategy" losing isn't - in my opinion. Those are really the only two options.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hall wrote:

Struggling while immersed in quicksand isn't good strategy either - lay on your back and float to the edge is better.
And you can't compare pre-20th century war with modern warfare.
We quit in Korea because of a very large opponent to the north - China.
Once they got in there was no way we could "win" - nobody has ever defeated China. Yes, the Japanese occupied some cities, but they never controlled most of the land mass.
Vietnam and Iraq are similar - both are wars we never should have gotten in in the first place. If you think otherwise please tell me what vital American interests were at risk if we didn't invade Iraq.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:55:18 -0700, Larry Blanchard

While neither agreeing nor disagreeing with any of your statements or assertions above, I must ask what any of it has to do with the concept of having and/or announcing an "exit strategy" prior to winning a war. The very fact of an "exit strategy" (other than "win the war") assures that you have lost the war as it demonstartes to the other side that you do not have the will to win. You might as well just cut and run. This is true whether it is a "war to end all wars" a "fight against tyranny and to protect the american way of life", a "police action", or a war to protect us from "WMDs". In other words, whether the war is "just" or they are "wars we never should have gotten in in the first place" is immaterial. Once you are in it you cannot demonstrate to the opponent that if they just hold out long enough we will give up in disgrace like in Vietnam and Somolia. If you do, they will.
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so if this had really been about WMDs, we'd have been out of there in under a month once it was confirmed that in fact there were none. but gwb knew that in the first place- it was a weak excuse, soon abandoned. it's not so much that there was no exit strategy- it's that the intent was to occupy indefinitely- a concept that badly underestimated the will of the iraqi people.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:06:26 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@all.costs wrote:

... snip

To quote a phrase that seems to be all the rage these days, "That's BS". The will of which Iraqi people? From the comments from the soldiers coming back from Iraq, the majority of the Iraqi people appreciate what has been done for them. As for the insurgency, despite what CNN and the NYT seem to be saying, these aren't a bunch of freedom-loving natives looking to expel the "oppressors"; just as in Vietnam, they are a bunch of statist despots looking to gain control in order to again subjugate their fellow countrymen once they get the coalition forces to leave. If you have any doubt of that, look at who most of their victims are -- they care not a whit if they kill innocent women or children, just so they can carry out an attack that *might* hurt someone associated with the coalition forces. You'd think the anti-war protesters would have learned from Vietnam, but apparently not.
If our intent was to become permanent occupiers, the US would be demanding some sort of repayment for the occupation (say oil shipments) -- that's flat out not happening. It'd be pretty silly to become occupiers simply for the sake of having a standing army in that country, wouldn't it?
I can just imagine the outcry from the left if the US had done as suggested -- defeat the standing army, depose the dictator, search and not find the WMD's that most of the world believed that he had, then just move out and let anarchy and chaos descend on the country. Yeah, they'd have really been praising that as the most "humane" approach.
Given how badly the pressed botched the reporting of the hurricanes in NO, it's amazing to me that people still believe the spin that is put on reports from those same news organizations in Iraq.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hall wrote:

Unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany followed by the formation of a stable and peaceful non-militarized democratic government. An essential feature was the guarantee of US protection against foreign (e.g. Soviet) agggression, an agreement still in effect so that in a very real sense, we have not yet exited. The Bush administration would have us believe that this is their strategy in Iraq, but the reality is addressed below.

Forcing Germany to accept the terms that became the Armistice agreement.

Surrender to the US, of the islands invaded by the US. Actually exitting from the theater took many years and transition to self government of those islands. Note, we still have not exited from Puerto Rico, and are stil paying the personal income tax passed to pay for that war.

Unconditional Surrender followed by Reconstruction.

The intial exit strategy was dependant on the successful invasion and annexation of Canada. Having lost that campaign the exit strategy became to survive as a nation until Great Britain got tired of burning our cities. On the plus side, we did get to keep Detroit (the only strategically significant American land victory in the war) and an end to impressment in exchange for our promise to not invade Canada again. Plus we got to kill a lot of lobsterbacks defending New Orleans. Too bad that didn't happen three months earlier, we could have had two strategically important victories.

Forcing Great Britain to recognise the United States of America as an Independent Nation. Had a do over thirty years later.

We have not exitted from Korea, nor lost the war The current exit strategy diplomatic, to convince North Korea to recognize the defacto border, agree to not invade again, and demilitarize. Reunification would be even better, but we don't have to be there for that to happen.

The exit strategy for Vietnam as to turn the job of fighting the war over to the Army of South Vietnam, so they could defend themsleves and we would no longer be needed. Sound familiar? One disadvantage in Vietnam was that, unlike Iraq, the Viet Cong and ANV were certain to keep fighting after we left.

The exit strategy for the Iraqi-Kuwaiti war, was to drive the Iraqi forces out for Kuwait and, by threatening annihilation of the remaining forces force Saddam Husein to agree to not threaten Kuwait again. We got more out of it

How will we know if we win in Iraq? The insurgency will not stop so long as foreign troops are on Iraqi soil. If we require an end to the insurgency in order to win, we must exit Iraq in order to win. It is by no means certain that the Iraqis will not fight among themselves in the absence of foreign troops but it is ceratin that some Iraqis will fight so long as some Foreign troops are there.
But like I said, Bush's exit strategy is to leave office at the end of his second term. I am not so naive as to suppose he gives a rat's ass how long US troops stay in Iraq after it becomes someone else's problem.
--

FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.