Politics befrore security...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
I've seen innocent civilians get killed. It's not pretty. It was never,
to
my knowledge, done purposely. Yes, there are bad apples in the military,
but to imply this county purposely kills 'innocent goat herders' is
offensive bull****.

Sometimes people forget. In Vietnam, they were shooting back.

Decision time.

Eisboch

If we weren't stupid enough to get involved in the mess in Vietnam, no one
would have been shooting at us there.

You are quite the Monday morning visionary, aren't you?

Eisboch


After this, it should have been obvious to Kennedy and the presidents
that followed that we had no business supporting the parade of
right-wing dictators in south Vietnam.

The reality is, we shouldn't have picked up where the French left off a
generation earlier.

It's not reverse hindsight to be stating this. There was *nothing*
correct about our involving ourselves in that country. Had the French
not tried to re-established themselves there after WW II, that part of
the world would have been far different. All we did there was make a
mess into a far bigger mess in which *millions* of lives were lost for
nothing.

Here's a thought for you. The auto industry makes up a significant
percentage of our heavy manufacturing abilities. If we allow it to fail,
and that seems very possible, we will have lost much of our ability to
wage serious war. Not only would we not have the auto plants staffed and
available to manufacture for a war effort, we will have lost most of the
ancillary industries, too.

Hey, I know...we can shop for stuff on...eBay.

Politics befrore security...
 

Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...
I've seen innocent civilians get killed. It's not pretty. It was
never, to
my knowledge, done purposely. Yes, there are bad apples in the
military,
but to imply this county purposely kills 'innocent goat herders' is
offensive bull****.

Sometimes people forget. In Vietnam, they were shooting back.

Decision time.

Eisboch

If we weren't stupid enough to get involved in the mess in Vietnam,
no one would have been shooting at us there.

You are quite the Monday morning visionary, aren't you?

Eisboch


After this, it should have been obvious to Kennedy and the presidents
that followed that we had no business supporting the parade of
right-wing dictators in south Vietnam.

The reality is, we shouldn't have picked up where the French left off a
generation earlier.

It's not reverse hindsight to be stating this. There was *nothing*
correct about our involving ourselves in that country. Had the French
not tried to re-established themselves there after WW II, that part of
the world would have been far different. All we did there was make a
mess into a far bigger mess in which *millions* of lives were lost for
nothing.

Here's a thought for you. The auto industry makes up a significant
percentage of our heavy manufacturing abilities. If we allow it to fail,
and that seems very possible, we will have lost much of our ability to
wage serious war. Not only would we not have the auto plants staffed and
available to manufacture for a war effort, we will have lost most of the
ancillary industries, too.

Hey, I know...we can shop for stuff on...eBay.



Forgot the URL After this:

http://www.geocities.com/tcartz/sacrifice.htm

Politics befrore security...
 

Don White wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
When I was young I liked to fight and thought the US should be the
same way. I am now a lot older and a lot wiser.
We need to be a lot more careful where we are willing to spill
American blood and also be careful before we spill other people's
blood. We are far from "untouchable" and you can't kill enough
innocent goat herders to change that. It only makes it worse.

Well said. I agree.

One problem though. The world is always full of new "young" people
going through the same process.
There's no chill pill.

Eisboch
I've always thought we should send the old farts clamoring for war off to
the battlefront first, along with their sons and daughters. In our most
recent lunacy, think how much "cred" Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neocons
would have had if they were shipped over to Iraq in uniform, handed a
rifle and told to lead the way.

We've got a few here like that, too. Their privilege to speak their minds.
But let's see them back that up with action and sacrifice on their part. I
suspect *that* would chill most of the warmongers and if they did go, thin
out some of the bad blood in the gene pool.

Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of the
mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in the
case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did it
mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons
there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all.

No chance...a lot of the big talkers here would squeal & whine like babies
if their income tax was raised to reflect the true cost of the Iraq war.




Most of the warmongers here already squeal and whine like babies.
Imagine them with...a hangnail.

Politics befrore security...
 

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Here's a thought for you. The auto industry makes up a significant
percentage of our heavy manufacturing abilities. If we allow it to fail,
and that seems very possible, we will have lost much of our ability to
wage serious war. Not only would we not have the auto plants staffed and
available to manufacture for a war effort, we will have lost most of the
ancillary industries, too.

Hey, I know...we can shop for stuff on...eBay.



First of all, the auto industry is not anywhere near as important as a
wartime manufacturing base as it was 60 years ago. Future wars will not be
won because of a limitless manufacturing capacity in the US as it existed
during WWII. It will be fought and ultimately won with small, special
capabilities forces supported by technology. Still, the auto industry
should be saved.

There's a smarter, well proven way to resolve the auto industry problems.
It's called voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I am watching the House
hearings as I type. The UAW president is arguing against a prepackaged
Chapter 11 (with tax payer assistance) because he claims nobody will buy an
American car with the company in Chapter 11. I guess nobody has informed
him that nobody's buying them now.

It's painful to watch. I have to give Ford a bit of credit as they seem to
have been making more major changes in their business model than GM or
Chrysler. They aren't looking for a bailout, but rather a standby line of
credit.

A pre-packaged Chapter 11 is the fairest solution for all concerned,
including the taxpayer. It's not going out of business; it's an opportunity
to reorganize the business without being forced into involuntary bankruptcy.
Chapter 11 is far better than Chapter 7 for all concerned.

Eisboch

Politics befrore security...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Here's a thought for you. The auto industry makes up a significant
percentage of our heavy manufacturing abilities. If we allow it to fail,
and that seems very possible, we will have lost much of our ability to
wage serious war. Not only would we not have the auto plants staffed and
available to manufacture for a war effort, we will have lost most of the
ancillary industries, too.

Hey, I know...we can shop for stuff on...eBay.



First of all, the auto industry is not anywhere near as important as a
wartime manufacturing base as it was 60 years ago. Future wars will not
be won because of a limitless manufacturing capacity in the US as it
existed during WWII. It will be fought and ultimately won with small,
special capabilities forces supported by technology. Still, the auto
industry should be saved.

There's a smarter, well proven way to resolve the auto industry problems.
It's called voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I am watching the House
hearings as I type. The UAW president is arguing against a prepackaged
Chapter 11 (with tax payer assistance) because he claims nobody will buy
an American car with the company in Chapter 11. I guess nobody has
informed him that nobody's buying them now.

It's painful to watch. I have to give Ford a bit of credit as they seem
to have been making more major changes in their business model than GM or
Chrysler. They aren't looking for a bailout, but rather a standby line
of credit.

A pre-packaged Chapter 11 is the fairest solution for all concerned,
including the taxpayer. It's not going out of business; it's an
opportunity to reorganize the business without being forced into
involuntary bankruptcy. Chapter 11 is far better than Chapter 7 for all
concerned.

Eisboch

The airlines did and people still flew.

Politics befrore security...
 

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:45:21 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

Here's a thought for you. The auto industry makes up a significant
percentage of our heavy manufacturing abilities. If we allow it to fail,
and that seems very possible, we will have lost much of our ability to
wage serious war. Not only would we not have the auto plants staffed and
available to manufacture for a war effort, we will have lost most of the
ancillary industries, too.

Hey, I know...we can shop for stuff on...eBay.



First of all, the auto industry is not anywhere near as important as a
wartime manufacturing base as it was 60 years ago. Future wars will not be
won because of a limitless manufacturing capacity in the US as it existed
during WWII. It will be fought and ultimately won with small, special
capabilities forces supported by technology. Still, the auto industry
should be saved.

There's a smarter, well proven way to resolve the auto industry problems.
It's called voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I am watching the House
hearings as I type. The UAW president is arguing against a prepackaged
Chapter 11 (with tax payer assistance) because he claims nobody will buy an
American car with the company in Chapter 11. I guess nobody has informed
him that nobody's buying them now.

It's painful to watch. I have to give Ford a bit of credit as they seem to
have been making more major changes in their business model than GM or
Chrysler. They aren't looking for a bailout, but rather a standby line of
credit.

A pre-packaged Chapter 11 is the fairest solution for all concerned,
including the taxpayer. It's not going out of business; it's an opportunity
to reorganize the business without being forced into involuntary bankruptcy.
Chapter 11 is far better than Chapter 7 for all concerned.

I'm not sure that Chap 11 is the right way to go. Depends on union
and dealer concessions under the gov loan deal.
With Chap 11 management has more options, but I don't trust the
management. What's hilarious about this is the auto guys are going
through hell while asking for less than 5% of what Congress just gave
Wall Street with no real resistance.
We'll see how it turns out. I'm pretty sure GM and Ford will tough it
out however it goes.
What I find most interesting is the air of protectionism the lays over
it all.
There are big changes a'comin'.

--Vic

Politics befrore security...
 

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:45:21 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Future wars will not be won because of a limitless manufacturing
capacity in the US as it existed during WWII. It will be fought and
ultimately won with small, special capabilities forces supported by
technology.

As my Maternal Grandfather used to say in polite company,
Bullfeathers.

Rumsfield was a proponent of this approach and look where it got us
for the first three years of the war - freakin' nowhere. It wasn't
until the boots got on the ground and established a presence in force
that things started turning around for the better.

You can have all the Predators, shoot around corner rifles, night
vision goggles, smart bombs and the smartest best trained troopers in
the world, all you need is one dumbass farmer who can configure an IED
out of a left-over dumb bomb and it's all for naught - if you don't
have the boots, you can't secure the ground - you can't secure the
ground, you ain't gonna win.

And having the boots means grunts - lots of 'em.

It will be true for as long as there are armies - boots equals ground
control - ground control equals victory.

And also, after reading further down the thread, Vietnam wasn't lost -
we gave up due to political pressure and dippy hippies who were
'ascared.

--

"Every normal man must be tempted at times
to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag,
and begin to slit throats."

H. L. Mencken

Politics befrore security...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
ry.

And also, after reading further down the thread, Vietnam wasn't lost -
we gave up due to political pressure and dippy hippies who were
'ascared.



Ahhh...we didn't lose in Vietnam...we gave up.

If it weren't describing such a horrific event, it would be funny.

Politics befrore security...
 

On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:30:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:33:10 -0500, Boater wrote:

Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of
the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in
the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did
it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons
there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all.



Bush acted on the intel he got from our sources and those of other
interested countries. His mistake was in waiting six months to act.



I don't consider it a mistake. It was an obligation, in an attempt to
prevent an invasion and war. All Saddam had to do initially was to honor
the UN defined resolutions agreed to at the end of Gulf War l.
He had a final, 11th hour chance to avoid war by responding to an ultimatum
for him and his goofy sons to beat feet. Bottom line is (and this has been
substantiated by some of Saddam's surviving staff members) that Saddam
thought Bush was bluffing and didn't have the balls (or support) to invade.
Obviously, he was proven wrong.

It really gets my ass sometimes that some people ignore the six months or
more of trying to work within the UN, the warnings, the ultimatums, the UN
votes supporting the enforcement of previous resolutions, all resulting in
Saddam giving the world the finger.

Bush had two choices. Either do what he said he would do or say, "Oooops,
sorry, just kidding, lets talk".

Eisboch


Of course Bush had to let the UN do it's thing. It was a mistake in that it
gave Saddam too much time to hide/dispose of that which needed hiding.
Liberals tend to forget the six months warning and claim there was never a
'reason' in the first place.

Maybe that's why they get called names so often.

And, golfing was great!
--
John H.

Politics befrore security...
 

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:36:54 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:43:23 -0500, Boater wrote:

Tim wrote:
On Dec 5, 5:33 am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...
When I was young I liked to fight and thought the US should be the
same way. I am now a lot older and a lot wiser.
We need to be a lot more careful where we are willing to spill
American blood and also be careful before we spill other people's
blood. We are far from "untouchable" and you can't kill enough
innocent goat herders to change that. It only makes it worse.
Well said. I agree.
One problem though. The world is always full of new "young" people going
through the same process.
There's no chill pill.
Eisboch
I've always thought we should send the old farts clamoring for war off
to the battlefront first, along with their sons and daughters. In our
most recent lunacy, think how much "cred" Cheney and Rumsfeld and the
neocons would have had if they were shipped over to Iraq in uniform,
handed a rifle and told to lead the way.

We've got a few here like that, too. Their privilege to speak their
minds. But let's see them back that up with action and sacrifice on
their part. I suspect *that* would chill most of the warmongers and if
they did go, thin out some of the bad blood in the gene pool.

Usually, but not always, sending our young people to fight because of
the mistakes of their elders, is wrong. It was the right thing to do in
the case of Bush I, because he knew what the hell he was doing, and did
it mostly right. It was wrong in the case of Bush II for so many reasons
there isn't enough bandwidth to list them all.
Oh well, Obama's gonna fixit. Look at what he did for Illinois?

http://www.forthegoodofillinois.org/IL-Debt-Counter/

I don't expect Obama to fix all the messes President Idiot left before
he headed back to oblivion and drunkedness in Texas, but I do believe he
will work assiduously to restore our position of respect and admiration
in the world. He'll shut down the Gitmo Gulag, he'll seriously start
ending the war against Iraq without all the Bush Admin bull****, he'll
have us participating in treaties the rest of the world supports, he'll
take diplomacy a lot more seriously, and he will talk to our enemies,
not just rattle sabers at them.

On the other hand, with Bush's mismanagement of the economy, maybe we'll
just be better off if the country declares Chapter 11.

You make him sound like another kiss-ass liberal. I hope he's got some
balls.

Come January 20th, it's his fault. No blaming Bush. Remember your response
whenever Clinton got mentioned.

I'm hoping you'll take you and yours on the Inauguration Cruise.

http://tinyurl.com/6mppkl
--
John H

*Have a Super Christmas and a Spectacular New Year!*


The Bush Recession/Depression will not be Obama's fault.
But any significant foreign policy blunders after he takes office will be.

Yeah, that's just what we want to do...get on a cruise ship in
Lauderdale with a boatload of drunks for a cruise to Bal'mer...in
mid-January.

Domestically, I think we are heading to the Left Coast in February and
then a week in southern Florida in May before it gets too hot for man or
beast. We have two "furrin" trips planned for 2009.


You are absolutely correct. The Bush Recession will be Barney Frank and
Chris Dodd's fault.

Leave your computer at home when you go. Also, be sure your wife takes her
camera and some pictures.

Did you ever find your 'bridge top' pictures? :=)
--
John H.