"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

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.

"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

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.

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

"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

"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.

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

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

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.