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.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:40:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


Just as the other one, you are not addressing the mission of the military to
which Chuck referred.

You are addressing politics, results of actions, and your political feelings.
None of that has to do with my question to Chuck.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

You are addressing politics, results of actions, and your political feelings.
None of that has to do with my question to Chuck.

You have been answered very clearly. You are the one backpedaling and
trying to obfuscate the question you asked.

The military mission under this collaborator in chief is corrupt by any
definition. 1500 American servicemen and women have died for no good
reason at all.

If the US government and its corporate managers wanted democracy in the
Middle East they would not have overthrown the one in Iran and installed
the Shah ... our record of supporting democracy anywhere has only gone
downhill from that.

What will it take to waken you and your ilk?

Rick

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:09:51 GMT, Rick wrote:

John H wrote:

You are addressing politics, results of actions, and your political feelings.
None of that has to do with my question to Chuck.

You have been answered very clearly. You are the one backpedaling and
trying to obfuscate the question you asked.

The military mission under this collaborator in chief is corrupt by any
definition. 1500 American servicemen and women have died for no good
reason at all.

If the US government and its corporate managers wanted democracy in the
Middle East they would not have overthrown the one in Iran and installed
the Shah ... our record of supporting democracy anywhere has only gone
downhill from that.

What will it take to waken you and your ilk?

Rick

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 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:
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

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:55:31 -0500, 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

Comments, none of which pertain to the mission statement, noted.
--
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!!!!

"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.

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

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."