On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:30:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:20:22 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:56:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:14:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
news:bsbj4153fj8iru71ehbsnq35dgj7d1fudk@4ax .com...

You deviate. Here is the mission, as of now. With what do you
disagree?

WARFIGHTING

snip

You're quoting from a manual. The mission we're discussing is the one
originally described by your president, and added to as his initial
goals
proved to be either nonsense, or impossible.


I quoted the mission of the military in that neck of the woods. If
Chuck
meant a
different mission, then he should so state. He made no mention of the
president's mission or his initial goals.
--
John H

Nice dodge, but no dice. You quoted the mission of the military in ANY
war.
The mission in question is, in fact, the specific reason they were sent
to
a
certain place.

Perhaps you should go to the Centcom site and determine what is meant by
'Central Region'.

" 1. Protect, promote and preserve U.S. interests in the Central Region
to
include the free flow of energy resources, access to regional states,
freedom of
navigation, and maintenance of regional stability."

Yah...OK, John. That would be identical to our mission in the same general
neck of the woods in WWII. No more quoting generic goals, please. The
goals
are those stated by the monkey with whom the buck stops (in theory).


The goals of the President were not being denigrated (except obtusely) by
Mr.
Gould.

The 'invasion' of Iraq is no longer a 'mission' of anyone. It's done.
--
John H

The UNSTATED mission is NOT done. The troops are still there.


The STATED mission has not been achieved. When it has, the mission will change,
and the troops will not be there.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."