We;ve all got DVD's we've seen and will probably never watch again. Here's a way
to help the troops out.

http://www.dvds4troops.org/


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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.

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?

WARFIGHTING

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.
2. Develop and maintain the forces and infrastructure needed to respond to
the full spectrum of military operations.
3. Deter conflict through demonstrated resolve in such efforts as forward
presence, prepositioning, exercises, and confidence building measures.
4. Maintain command readiness to fight and win decisively at all levels of
conflict.
5. Protect the force by providing an appropriate level of security and
safety.

ENGAGEMENT

1. Maintain, support and contribute to coalitions and other collective
security efforts that support U.S. and mutual interests in the region.
2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional militaries.
3. Promote efforts in the region to counter threats from weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, information warfare, and drug trafficking.
4. Establish and maintain close relationships with regional political and
military leaders.
5. Develop integrated regional engagement approaches through cooperation with
counterparts in the interagency, other unified commands, and key
non-governmental and private volunteer organizations.

DEVELOPMENT

1. Promote and support environmental and humanitarian efforts and provide
prompt response to humanitarian and environmental crises.
2. Educate key leaders and the American public on the mission of USCENTCOM,
the importance of the Central Region and the contributions made by our friends
in the region in supporting vital U.S. interests.
3. Develop a positive command climate that encourages innovation, develops
tomorrow's leaders, provides for a high quality of life, promotes respect of
others, and increases appreciation of regional cultures.
4. Participate in concept and doctrine development, assessment of desired
operational capabilities and integration of validated capabilities.
5. Maintain regional awareness of security, political, social and economic
trends.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck?


How about the whole Iraq thing?

WARFIGHTING

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.

And is any of that being accomplished in Iraq?

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

And is any of this being accomplished in Iraq?

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

The "deter conflict" thing doesn't seem to be working at all in Iraq.

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

The Iraq war has been a tremendous setback for readiness in all other
areas of operation.

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

Maybe that's why the Army is hiring private security guards in Iraq?


ENGAGEMENT

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

Failure there, the few members of President Bush's little coalition are
bailing out.

2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional militaries.

Now there's *one* thing we seem to be working on in Iraq.

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

Going backwards here... no WMDs, terrorism increasing, and poppy/heroin
production booming in Afghanistan...

4. Establish and maintain close relationships with regional political and
military leaders.

Other than the ones we are threatening to invade?

Etc etc.

Seriously, John H, if you have *any* positive statements about what
Bush's invasion of Iraq has accomplished... other than the removal of
Saddam Hussein... let's hear it.

DSK

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:55:17 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck?


How about the whole Iraq thing?

WARFIGHTING

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.

And is any of that being accomplished in Iraq?

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

And is any of this being accomplished in Iraq?

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

The "deter conflict" thing doesn't seem to be working at all in Iraq.

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

The Iraq war has been a tremendous setback for readiness in all other
areas of operation.

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

Maybe that's why the Army is hiring private security guards in Iraq?


ENGAGEMENT

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

Failure there, the few members of President Bush's little coalition are
bailing out.

2. Promote and support responsible and capable regional militaries.

Now there's *one* thing we seem to be working on in Iraq.

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

Going backwards here... no WMDs, terrorism increasing, and poppy/heroin
production booming in Afghanistan...

4. Establish and maintain close relationships with regional political and
military leaders.

Other than the ones we are threatening to invade?

Etc etc.

Seriously, John H, if you have *any* positive statements about what
Bush's invasion of Iraq has accomplished... other than the removal of
Saddam Hussein... let's hear it.

DSK

Doug, Dave doesn't think you're a waste of time.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Seriously, John H, if you have *any* positive statements about what
Bush's invasion of Iraq has accomplished... other than the removal of
Saddam Hussein... let's hear it.



John H wrote:
Doug, Dave doesn't think you're a waste of time.

So can you answer the questions? If President Bush were really doing
such a good job, and the Iraq War really sucha success, it should be
easy to answer the questions.

OTOH if you are angry & frustrated because you know you cannot answer
the questions, then maybe you should reconsider your political opinions.

Believing that water flows up hill makes a great religion, but it's a
stupid way to design a plumbing system... and the same sort of blind
faith is an even stupider way to decide national policy...

DSK

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:13:44 -0500, DSK wrote:

Seriously, John H, if you have *any* positive statements about what
Bush's invasion of Iraq has accomplished... other than the removal of
Saddam Hussein... let's hear it.



John H wrote:
Doug, Dave doesn't think you're a waste of time.

So can you answer the questions? If President Bush were really doing
such a good job, and the Iraq War really sucha success, it should be
easy to answer the questions.

OTOH if you are angry & frustrated because you know you cannot answer
the questions, then maybe you should reconsider your political opinions.

Believing that water flows up hill makes a great religion, but it's a
stupid way to design a plumbing system... and the same sort of blind
faith is an even stupider way to decide national policy...

DSK

This was the question:

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

There was no discussion of the status of completion.

I don't wish to get into a 'smart-assed comment' contest with you.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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

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

The part where the military is used as an economic tool for private
profits rather than a national defense force. That part. See Iraq, the
non-retaliation for 9-11, the not-so-intense hunt for Osama bin Ladin,
the no bid-no competitition-bottomless blank check to Dick Cheney's
boardroom pals for support and supply in Iraq-(but that's OK, we won't
include those expenditures in the budget, and the folks who are heart
and soul behind Bush either won't notice, or won't care).

We have become a laughing stock.

Take our great "ally", Pakistan.

Guess what the most popular first name for boy babies has been in
Pakistan, ever since 9-11? "Osama". We just sold them a ton of
extremely advanced aircraft- (enough to upset India). Bush is being
hoodwinked in the Arab bazaar, and the con is so complete he thinks
he's scoring victories. The net result of all this expense and
sacrifice will not turn out to be as advertised. (Then somebody will
blame that on the Democrats, of course).

The Commander in Cheat sends our troops on some missions with
disgraceful motives, but that doesn't make the men and women who serve
disgraceful.

On 29 Mar 2005 08:53:54 -0800, wrote:

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

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

The part where the military is used as an economic tool for private
profits rather than a national defense force. That part. See Iraq, the
non-retaliation for 9-11, the not-so-intense hunt for Osama bin Ladin,
the no bid-no competitition-bottomless blank check to Dick Cheney's
boardroom pals for support and supply in Iraq-(but that's OK, we won't
include those expenditures in the budget, and the folks who are heart
and soul behind Bush either won't notice, or won't care).

We have become a laughing stock.

Take our great "ally", Pakistan.

Guess what the most popular first name for boy babies has been in
Pakistan, ever since 9-11? "Osama". We just sold them a ton of
extremely advanced aircraft- (enough to upset India). Bush is being
hoodwinked in the Arab bazaar, and the con is so complete he thinks
he's scoring victories. The net result of all this expense and
sacrifice will not turn out to be as advertised. (Then somebody will
blame that on the Democrats, of course).

The Commander in Cheat sends our troops on some missions with
disgraceful motives, but that doesn't make the men and women who serve
disgraceful.

Chuck, I posted the mission of the forces. Which part of the mission is a crock
of crap?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...


Chuck, I posted the mission of the forces. Which part of the mission is a
crock
of crap?
--
John H

Since you keep repeating yourself, I'm assuming you're home with a high
fever, and as a result, you're delirious today. I'd like to confirm what
your question is before answering it.

"Which part of the mission is a crock of crap?"

You typed that, and it ended with a question mark. Therefore, we'll assume
that is your question.

The answer:
The entire mission is a crock of crap. Democracy in Iraq is of no
consequence to us. If it was meant to reach that stage in the future, it
would have done so in due time. No WMDs were found, OBL was allowed to
escape, and as Chuck has pointed out, your president's sitters have told him
to align himself with Pakistan, which has been, and will continue to be
rattling sabres at India, a nation which has possessed nuclear weapons for
quite some time. As a whole, the mission is questionable because the primary
benefit thus far has been to guarantee Cheney a job at the end of his next
term.