Revolt of the Generals
 

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:22:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:49:27 -0400, DSK said:

Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they tried to make
a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.

So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the
past, and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Personally, I'm a fan of letting professionals do what they have trained
for. I'm not a fan of putting our soldiers lives at risk to prove a
point. Remember what happened to Gen. Shinseki when he stated the
occupation forces needed? Perhaps, if Rumsfeld had listened to the
professionals, Iraq would be a far more peaceful place now.

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Bob Crantz" said:
B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.


Dave wrote:
Sorry, Bob it ain't worth effort to try and parse that.

Not surprised you think so.
It's very similar to transitivity, one of the fundamental
axioms of math.

This is just another one of those "water does *so* run up
hill, if President Bush (or any of his media cheerleaders)
says it does!" type of arguments.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:17:13 -0400, Vito wrote:


Saddam was never a threat to the USA, he had no WMDs and had NO part in
the 9/11 or other attacks on us. His support for terrorism was limited to
support for Palistinians attacking Israel. OTOH, he was a bulwark against
the real threat - Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. Attacking him was the
equivalent of attacking Stalin while trying to beat Hitler in the middle
of WW2!

On that particular point, I'm wondering if we will ever get the full story
about Chalabi's ties to Iran. I have read some speculation that the
Iranians played Bush for the fool that he is. It is possible Iran got us
to do their work for them. Possible, but probably doubtful. The current
crop of Iranian leaders just don't seem to have that kind of subtlety.

Revolt of the Generals
 

didn't mention anything at all about
downsizing, the Crusader artillery


Dave wrote:
But of course, Doug. That's why the bureaucratic game is called back
stabbing rather than frontal assault.

In other words, it doesn't matter what they said. The
important thing is, can you convince the public what you
want them to have said.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 08:46:16 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

B attempts to trivialize A. C supports A. If B is true then A and C are
false.

Sorry, Bob it ain't worth effort to try and parse that.

I never said Rumsfeld was lying. I asked you if Rumsfeld was lying.

Revolt of the Generals
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:17:13 -0400, Vito wrote:


Saddam was never a threat to the USA, he had no WMDs and had NO part in
the 9/11 or other attacks on us. His support for terrorism was limited to
support for Palistinians attacking Israel. OTOH, he was a bulwark
against
the real threat - Islamic extremists like al Qaeda. Attacking him was
the
equivalent of attacking Stalin while trying to beat Hitler in the middle
of WW2!

On that particular point, I'm wondering if we will ever get the full story
about Chalabi's ties to Iran. I have read some speculation that the
Iranians played Bush for the fool that he is. It is possible Iran got us
to do their work for them. Possible, but probably doubtful. The current
crop of Iranian leaders just don't seem to have that kind of subtlety.

Sure they do. They are goading the US into an attack on their "nuclear"
facilities. Also they want to sell oil in Euros, not dollars.

Another invasion, another war. Oil prices will skyrocket and who will
profit?

The Iranians are just someone else's puppets.

Follow the money, follow the strings...


Glory!

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:18:46 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

I never said Rumsfeld was lying. I asked you if Rumsfeld was lying.

And of course you had no intention of suggesting he was.

Why would I want to suggest anything when I could have you answer the
question based on Rumsfeld's own words.

You answered my question with a question and now attack the messenger with
your suggestion of intent, rather than address the original issue.

So, is Rumsfeld lying?

You can't answer the question. Ever.

Amen!

Revolt of the Generals
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 10:59:33 -0600, "Bob Crantz"
said:

You can't answer the question. Ever.
PLONK!

hehehehe!!!

The troop withdrawal was an error on the part of the WSJ. They retracted it
today.

Jumped a little too fast to defend Rummy for something he didn't do, eh?

Revolt of the Generals
 

You can't answer the question. Ever.

PLONK!


Bob Crantz wrote:
hehehehe!!!

The troop withdrawal was an error on the part of the WSJ. They retracted it
today.

Jumped a little too fast to defend Rummy for something he didn't do, eh?


But you just *know* that WSJ op-ed article was totally 'fair
& balanced' as well as 100% accurate, right?

Sometimes I think Dave is working to be President Bush's
next pick for the Supreme Court.

DSK

Revolt of the Generals
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
You can't answer the question. Ever.

PLONK!


Bob Crantz wrote:
hehehehe!!!

The troop withdrawal was an error on the part of the WSJ. They retracted
it today.

Jumped a little too fast to defend Rummy for something he didn't do, eh?


But you just *know* that WSJ op-ed article was totally 'fair & balanced'
as well as 100% accurate, right?


It's their opinion. I do value it but I don't have to believe all of it.



Sometimes I think Dave is working to be President Bush's next pick for the
Supreme Court.

He's a Bushbot. He took it hook, line and sinker to defend Rummy even though
Rummy did nothing wrong. That's the problem with the Bushbots. There's no
critical thinking, criticism is not acceptable and they destroy the
critics - even if they are loyal Republicans. Bush and his minions has done
more to destroy the Republican party(and America) than anyone else.



DSK