"John H" wrote in message
...
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!

Sounds like an asslicker response.



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."

Gould,
What is your point?


wrote in message
oups.com...
"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? :-)

Gould,
What is your point?

*********

Do try to follow along, Doc.

JohnH posted the general description of the duties of the Armed Forces
from the Central Command website, and then feigned incomprehension when
I made disparaging remarks about the "mission" in Iraq. According to
JohnH, there is no "mission" except the lofty platitudes enumerated on
the CentCom site, and the word "mission" cannot be used for a specific
deployment or operation. My point is that he is incorrect.

OK,
so let's suppose you are correct and John is incorrect, what is your point?
wrote in message
oups.com...
Gould,
What is your point?

*********

Do try to follow along, Doc.

JohnH posted the general description of the duties of the Armed Forces
from the Central Command website, and then feigned incomprehension when
I made disparaging remarks about the "mission" in Iraq. According to
JohnH, there is no "mission" except the lofty platitudes enumerated on
the CentCom site, and the word "mission" cannot be used for a specific
deployment or operation. My point is that he is incorrect.

Too busy laughing to answer my serious questions?


John H wrote:
You got it!


If you're past the giggling stage, you should lay off before you get to
drooling.


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


Never happen, Doug.


Agreed. After all, if you could explain & justify your beliefs and your
statements, then that would mean that they actually make sense.

DSK

On 29 Mar 2005 16:32:58 -0800, wrote:

"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? :-)

No, *you* were being obtuse. You made a statement about the mission of the
military in Iraq. I asked you which part of the mission you thought was crap.

Their mission says nothing about an invasion. That was their mission a couple
years ago. Their mission does have statements referring to their 'occupation'
(in terms of physical presence) of Iraq. There is nothing in their mission
requiring a permanent presence in Iraq, as you seem to suggest.

If you did not mean the military 'mission' when discussing the military and
their mission, then in what 'context' (i.e. definition) did you mean to use the
term?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 29 Mar 2005 21:23:02 -0800, wrote:

Gould,
What is your point?

*********

Do try to follow along, Doc.

JohnH posted the general description of the duties of the Armed Forces
from the Central Command website, and then feigned incomprehension when
I made disparaging remarks about the "mission" in Iraq. According to
JohnH, there is no "mission" except the lofty platitudes enumerated on
the CentCom site, and the word "mission" cannot be used for a specific
deployment or operation. My point is that he is incorrect.

When the units deployed they had a mission, which was different than their
current mission. If you were referring to their mission of two years ago, you
should have so stated.

I "feigned incomprehension"? Because I responded to what you said instead of
what you *meant* to say?

You're a writer, Chuck. You don't need to depend on smart-assed comments to make
your point.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:14:54 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
om...

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

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
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
m...
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.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:02:29 -0500, DSK wrote:

Too busy laughing to answer my serious questions?


John H wrote:
You got it!


If you're past the giggling stage, you should lay off before you get to
drooling.


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


Never happen, Doug.


Agreed. After all, if you could explain & justify your beliefs and your
statements, then that would mean that they actually make sense.

DSK

It's waaaay too much fun pointing out some of the more ridiculous assertions
made by those who believe a smart-assed comment somehow makes them correct.

How's this for one of my beliefs?

I never *believed* we should have invaded Iraq in the first place.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."