On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:30:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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
om...
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.


The STATED mission has not been achieved. When it has, the mission will change,
and the troops will not be there.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

DSK wrote:
John H wrote:
You deviate. Here is the mission, as of now. With what do you
disagree?

WARFIGHTING

1. Protect, promote and preserve U.S. interests in the Central
Region

Like what? Removing a dictator which we left in power in the 1st Gulf
War?

... to
include the free flow of energy resources,

Then why is the price of oil going up? Or do you interpret "free flow
of
energy resources" to mean "increased profits for oil companies"?


... access to regional states

Like Syria and Iran?

... freedom of navigation

Wow, now this one's almost on topic.

... and maintenance of regional stability.

Like in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia?


2. Develop and maintain the forces and infrastructure needed to
respond to
the full spectrum of military operations.

Good one... we are rebuilding the Iraq security force into a
self-sufficent unit. Not happening fast enough, but it's happening.
But
if that was a goal from the start, why did we destroy the Iraqi
security
forces in the first place?

3. Deter conflict through demonstrated resolve in such efforts
as forward
presence, prepositioning, exercises, and confidence building
measures.

It's hard to explain how we "deter conflict" by invading &
instigating a
war.

4. Maintain command readiness to fight and win decisively at all
levels of
conflict.

Now here (as I said earlier) we're going backwards. The Iraq war has
been a disaster for U.S. military readiness.


5. Protect the force by providing an appropriate level of
security and
safety.


I guess this is why so much of the security of U.S. bases is handled
by
subcontractors?

ENGAGEMENT
1. Maintain, support and contribute to coalitions and other
collective
security efforts that support U.S. and mutual interests in the
region.

That's why so many members of our Iraq coalition are pulling out.

2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional
militaries.

Like Syria?

3. Promote efforts in the region to counter threats from weapons
of mass
destruction, terrorism, information warfare, and drug trafficking.

That must be why we concluded there are none... are were no... WMDs
in
Iraq, why terrorism in the region is increasing, why the terrorist &
fundamentalists are gaining increasing access to public media and are

increasingly popular; and finally, why the heroin trade is booming in

Afghanistan.

The rest of the list is seeing similar results. The Bush
Administration
clearly had *none* of these goals in mind for the Iraq invasion.

DSK

It won't work, John just isn't getting it. He's asked the question over
and over, you guys have answered over and over, and his response is to
ask the same damned thing again!!!!

wrote in message
ups.com...

DSK wrote:
John H wrote:
You deviate. Here is the mission, as of now. With what do you
disagree?

WARFIGHTING

1. Protect, promote and preserve U.S. interests in the Central
Region

Like what? Removing a dictator which we left in power in the 1st Gulf
War?

... to
include the free flow of energy resources,

Then why is the price of oil going up? Or do you interpret "free flow
of
energy resources" to mean "increased profits for oil companies"?


... access to regional states

Like Syria and Iran?

... freedom of navigation

Wow, now this one's almost on topic.

... and maintenance of regional stability.

Like in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia?


2. Develop and maintain the forces and infrastructure needed to
respond to
the full spectrum of military operations.

Good one... we are rebuilding the Iraq security force into a
self-sufficent unit. Not happening fast enough, but it's happening.
But
if that was a goal from the start, why did we destroy the Iraqi
security
forces in the first place?

3. Deter conflict through demonstrated resolve in such efforts
as forward
presence, prepositioning, exercises, and confidence building
measures.

It's hard to explain how we "deter conflict" by invading &
instigating a
war.

4. Maintain command readiness to fight and win decisively at all
levels of
conflict.

Now here (as I said earlier) we're going backwards. The Iraq war has
been a disaster for U.S. military readiness.


5. Protect the force by providing an appropriate level of
security and
safety.


I guess this is why so much of the security of U.S. bases is handled
by
subcontractors?

ENGAGEMENT
1. Maintain, support and contribute to coalitions and other
collective
security efforts that support U.S. and mutual interests in the
region.

That's why so many members of our Iraq coalition are pulling out.

2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional
militaries.

Like Syria?

3. Promote efforts in the region to counter threats from weapons
of mass
destruction, terrorism, information warfare, and drug trafficking.

That must be why we concluded there are none... are were no... WMDs
in
Iraq, why terrorism in the region is increasing, why the terrorist &
fundamentalists are gaining increasing access to public media and are

increasingly popular; and finally, why the heroin trade is booming in

Afghanistan.

The rest of the list is seeing similar results. The Bush
Administration
clearly had *none* of these goals in mind for the Iraq invasion.

DSK

It won't work, John just isn't getting it. He's asked the question over
and over, you guys have answered over and over, and his response is to
ask the same damned thing again!!!!


Sort of like you and that Labatts/Labatt thing?

On 30 Mar 2005 06:14:19 -0800, wrote:


DSK wrote:
John H wrote:
You deviate. Here is the mission, as of now. With what do you
disagree?

WARFIGHTING

1. Protect, promote and preserve U.S. interests in the Central
Region

Like what? Removing a dictator which we left in power in the 1st Gulf
War?

... to
include the free flow of energy resources,

Then why is the price of oil going up? Or do you interpret "free flow
of
energy resources" to mean "increased profits for oil companies"?


... access to regional states

Like Syria and Iran?

... freedom of navigation

Wow, now this one's almost on topic.

... and maintenance of regional stability.

Like in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia?


2. Develop and maintain the forces and infrastructure needed to
respond to
the full spectrum of military operations.

Good one... we are rebuilding the Iraq security force into a
self-sufficent unit. Not happening fast enough, but it's happening.
But
if that was a goal from the start, why did we destroy the Iraqi
security
forces in the first place?

3. Deter conflict through demonstrated resolve in such efforts
as forward
presence, prepositioning, exercises, and confidence building
measures.

It's hard to explain how we "deter conflict" by invading &
instigating a
war.

4. Maintain command readiness to fight and win decisively at all
levels of
conflict.

Now here (as I said earlier) we're going backwards. The Iraq war has
been a disaster for U.S. military readiness.


5. Protect the force by providing an appropriate level of
security and
safety.


I guess this is why so much of the security of U.S. bases is handled
by
subcontractors?

ENGAGEMENT
1. Maintain, support and contribute to coalitions and other
collective
security efforts that support U.S. and mutual interests in the
region.

That's why so many members of our Iraq coalition are pulling out.

2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional
militaries.

Like Syria?

3. Promote efforts in the region to counter threats from weapons
of mass
destruction, terrorism, information warfare, and drug trafficking.

That must be why we concluded there are none... are were no... WMDs
in
Iraq, why terrorism in the region is increasing, why the terrorist &
fundamentalists are gaining increasing access to public media and are

increasingly popular; and finally, why the heroin trade is booming in

Afghanistan.

The rest of the list is seeing similar results. The Bush
Administration
clearly had *none* of these goals in mind for the Iraq invasion.

DSK

It won't work, John just isn't getting it. He's asked the question over
and over, you guys have answered over and over, and his response is to
ask the same damned thing again!!!!

The important thing is that *they* get it. They gave 'great' answers, but not to
the question asked.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

DSK wrote:
John H wrote:
You deviate. Here is the mission, as of now. With what do you
disagree?

WARFIGHTING

1. Protect, promote and preserve U.S. interests in the Central
Region

Like what? Removing a dictator which we left in power in the 1st Gulf
War?

... to
include the free flow of energy resources,

Then why is the price of oil going up? Or do you interpret "free flow
of
energy resources" to mean "increased profits for oil companies"?


... access to regional states

Like Syria and Iran?

... freedom of navigation

Wow, now this one's almost on topic.

... and maintenance of regional stability.

Like in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia?


2. Develop and maintain the forces and infrastructure needed to
respond to
the full spectrum of military operations.

Good one... we are rebuilding the Iraq security force into a
self-sufficent unit. Not happening fast enough, but it's happening.
But
if that was a goal from the start, why did we destroy the Iraqi
security
forces in the first place?

3. Deter conflict through demonstrated resolve in such efforts
as forward
presence, prepositioning, exercises, and confidence building
measures.

It's hard to explain how we "deter conflict" by invading &
instigating a
war.

4. Maintain command readiness to fight and win decisively at all
levels of
conflict.

Now here (as I said earlier) we're going backwards. The Iraq war has
been a disaster for U.S. military readiness.


5. Protect the force by providing an appropriate level of
security and
safety.


I guess this is why so much of the security of U.S. bases is handled
by
subcontractors?

ENGAGEMENT
1. Maintain, support and contribute to coalitions and other
collective
security efforts that support U.S. and mutual interests in the
region.

That's why so many members of our Iraq coalition are pulling out.

2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional
militaries.

Like Syria?

3. Promote efforts in the region to counter threats from weapons
of mass
destruction, terrorism, information warfare, and drug trafficking.

That must be why we concluded there are none... are were no... WMDs
in
Iraq, why terrorism in the region is increasing, why the terrorist &
fundamentalists are gaining increasing access to public media and are

increasingly popular; and finally, why the heroin trade is booming in

Afghanistan.

The rest of the list is seeing similar results. The Bush
Administration
clearly had *none* of these goals in mind for the Iraq invasion.

DSK

It won't work, John just isn't getting it. He's asked the question over
and over, you guys have answered over and over, and his response is to
ask the same damned thing again!!!!


Sort of like you and that Labatts/Labatt thing?

Let's not forget the "schnapps is whiskey" or "cow down" to name a couple
of others.

John H wrote:

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.

**************
Rewriting history so soon, John?

Yes, you asked which part of the mission you thought was crap...*AND
THEN PRESENTED THE CENTCOM STATEMENT ABOUT THE GENERAL MISSION OF THE
ARMED FORCES* as my universe of choices.

The thread began with a message from you specifically referencing our
troops in Iraq.
You defined the parameter of the discussion, and unilaterally sought to
expand it beyond the specific when it suited your purpose. Don't be so
transparent- in your next life you might have to return as a storm
window.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John H wrote:

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.

**************
Rewriting history so soon, John?

Yes, you asked which part of the mission you thought was crap...*AND
THEN PRESENTED THE CENTCOM STATEMENT ABOUT THE GENERAL MISSION OF THE
ARMED FORCES* as my universe of choices.

The thread began with a message from you specifically referencing our
troops in Iraq.
You defined the parameter of the discussion, and unilaterally sought to
expand it beyond the specific when it suited your purpose. Don't be so
transparent- in your next life you might have to return as a storm
window.


http://www.zutroy.com/stuff/neverend/

On 30 Mar 2005 09:14:39 -0800, wrote:

John H wrote:

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.

**************
Rewriting history so soon, John?

Yes, you asked which part of the mission you thought was crap...*AND
THEN PRESENTED THE CENTCOM STATEMENT ABOUT THE GENERAL MISSION OF THE
ARMED FORCES* as my universe of choices.

The thread began with a message from you specifically referencing our
troops in Iraq.
You defined the parameter of the discussion, and unilaterally sought to
expand it beyond the specific when it suited your purpose. Don't be so
transparent- in your next life you might have to return as a storm
window.

The mission I posted was the Centcom mission applicable to "Central Region" of
the Centcom area of operations. It most assuredly was not the 'General Mission
of the Armed Forces', if such a thing exists. You got the mission of the forces
in Iraq. You can wiggle all you want.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
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.


As opposed to those who believe that a dumb-assed comment somehow makes
them anything other than a dumb-ass?

How's this for one of my beliefs?

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

Nice little prevarication.

Why do you suppose I care what you believe, other than it's obvious you
think President Bush is always right.

DSK

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:56:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
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.


As opposed to those who believe that a dumb-assed comment somehow makes
them anything other than a dumb-ass?

How's this for one of my beliefs?

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

Nice little prevarication.

nope
Why do you suppose I care what you believe, other than it's obvious you
think President Bush is always right.

DSK

nope.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."