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

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
. ..

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.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:56:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


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

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...

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."

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

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

Give up John, you were lost at the beginning of this thread. Everything
since has been an attempt to run from the essential question and hang on
to a specious rhetoric which has no real substance beyond political
jingoism.

Were you one of those who also believed every word of Enron's mission
statement? Look up that one if you are a fan of such rhetoric.

John, you are one of those whose unquestioning slugs whose devotion to
authority and a "cause" has provided mass and power to every dictator
and tyrant who has ever cut the throats of his own countrymen. You and
your ilk are their feedstock.

Rick

John,
Iraq: The part about invading a foreign nation for the purpose of
deposing its leader. Afghanistan I don't have a problem with, different
circumstances,Iraq was a mistake.
If the reasons for invading Iraq are valid, when are we going to invade
Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba or any number of other non democratic
nations.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing something about them, but invasion
isn't the answer. Most of all because these nations aren't or didn't
invade us. They're using gorilla tactics, we should too.
IMHO
Paul


John H wrote:
On 28 Mar 2005 21:20:58 -0800, wrote:


Here's a link to most programs of this type.

http://www.defendamerica.mil/support_troops.html


The men and women serving in Iraq and their families left behind are
worthy of respect and support for their loyalty and service, even if
the mission itself is a crock of crap. The service people don't get to
debate where they're going to be sent or what moralities are involved.


What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:41:36 GMT, Rick wrote:

John H wrote:

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

Give up John, you were lost at the beginning of this thread. Everything
since has been an attempt to run from the essential question and hang on
to a specious rhetoric which has no real substance beyond political
jingoism.

Were you one of those who also believed every word of Enron's mission
statement? Look up that one if you are a fan of such rhetoric.

John, you are one of those whose unquestioning slugs whose devotion to
authority and a "cause" has provided mass and power to every dictator
and tyrant who has ever cut the throats of his own countrymen. You and
your ilk are their feedstock.

Rick

My gosh, you folks get so riled up! Chuck made this post:

"The men and women serving in Iraq and their families left behind are
worthy of respect and support for their loyalty and service, even if
the mission itself is a crock of crap. The service people don't get to
debate where they're going to be sent or what moralities are involved."

To which I responded:

"What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck?"

And then I posted the 'mission' of Centcom.

I ran from no question. I asked Chuck a question. The fact that you and the two
Dougs want to get into a smart-assed comment/****ing contest, I find hilarious!
You, basskisser, and Harry have a lot in common. You find it necessary to sling
mud.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
I ran from no question.

Except the ones that I asked you, which you have not even attempted to
answer.

... I asked Chuck a question.

Which he answered.

... The fact that you and the two
Dougs want to get into a smart-assed comment/****ing contest, I find hilarious!

Too busy laughing to answer my serious questions?

Or is it that you can't, and it ****es you off?

DSK

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:09:18 -0500, Paul Schilter ""paulschilter\"@comcast dot
net" wrote:

John,
Iraq: The part about invading a foreign nation for the purpose of
deposing its leader. Afghanistan I don't have a problem with, different
circumstances,Iraq was a mistake.
If the reasons for invading Iraq are valid, when are we going to invade
Iran, China, North Korea, Cuba or any number of other non democratic
nations.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing something about them, but invasion
isn't the answer. Most of all because these nations aren't or didn't
invade us. They're using gorilla tactics, we should too.
IMHO
Paul


We aren't talking about invading anyone. We're talking about the *mission* of
the soldiers who are there now.

It's really simple.

I have never said I liked the idea of invading Iraq!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:53:28 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
I ran from no question.

Except the ones that I asked you, which you have not even attempted to
answer.

... I asked Chuck a question.

Which he answered.

... The fact that you and the two
Dougs want to get into a smart-assed comment/****ing contest, I find hilarious!

Too busy laughing to answer my serious questions?

You got it!


Or is it that you can't, and it ****es you off?

Never happen, Doug.

DSK

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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

wrote:


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

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
m...

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).

"What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck?"


And then I posted the 'mission' of Centcom.


********************

The answer was, and is, the portion of the overall "mission"
represented by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

When a squad of soldiers embarks on a "mission", I would doubt very
much that they define their task at hand as that long list of abstract
goals which could, very legitimately, be described as the "mission" of
our armed forces. I also doubt very much that you are as obtuse on this
issue as you would pretend. The word "mission" can be properly used in
a number of contexts, not simply the one to which you are clinging.

Your argument is Clintonesque in the extreme. Does it depend on what
the definition of "is" is?
Maybe you're a Democrat at heart? :-)