| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Support the troops...a new way! OT (Not a bad news story!)
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. |
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. |
|
"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." |
OTOH if you are angry & frustrated because you know you cannot answer
the questions, then maybe you should reconsider your political opinions. John H wrote: This was the question: What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck? And I answered that question. The U.S. military has not been given a job which in any furthers the interests of the United States in the Iraq invasion. The Iraq war was based on lies & greed. The U.S. military has done an admirable job in those things which it has accomplished... all the more so because it was hobbled by profiteering. But that does not change the fact that other than removing Saddam Hussein from power, there is no mission to accomplish. "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" is not on the agenda for U.S. goals in Iraq. And if it is, then we are going backwards. The rest of the long list which you posted is no closer to being accomlished, judging by the best facts available. You are welcome to post facts indicating which goals from your list *are* being accomplished. DSK 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 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 14:08:30 -0500, DSK wrote:
OTOH if you are angry & frustrated because you know you cannot answer the questions, then maybe you should reconsider your political opinions. John H wrote: This was the question: What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck? And I answered that question. The U.S. military has not been given a job which in any furthers the interests of the United States in the Iraq invasion. The Iraq war was based on lies & greed. The U.S. military has done an admirable job in those things which it has accomplished... all the more so because it was hobbled by profiteering. But that does not change the fact that other than removing Saddam Hussein from power, there is no mission to accomplish. "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" is not on the agenda for U.S. goals in Iraq. And if it is, then we are going backwards. The rest of the long list which you posted is no closer to being accomlished, judging by the best facts available. You are welcome to post facts indicating which goals from your list *are* being accomplished. DSK There was no discussion of the status of completion. I don't wish to get into a 'smart-assed comment' contest with you. Here is their mission. What do you consider a crock of crap. Accomplishment is not the issue. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
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." |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:41:36 -0500, John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:08:30 -0500, DSK wrote: OTOH if you are angry & frustrated because you know you cannot answer the questions, then maybe you should reconsider your political opinions. John H wrote: This was the question: What part of their mission is a crock of crap, Chuck? And I answered that question. The U.S. military has not been given a job which in any furthers the interests of the United States in the Iraq invasion. The Iraq war was based on lies & greed. The U.S. military has done an admirable job in those things which it has accomplished... all the more so because it was hobbled by profiteering. But that does not change the fact that other than removing Saddam Hussein from power, there is no mission to accomplish. "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" is not on the agenda for U.S. goals in Iraq. And if it is, then we are going backwards. The rest of the long list which you posted is no closer to being accomlished, judging by the best facts available. You are welcome to post facts indicating which goals from your list *are* being accomplished. DSK There was no discussion of the status of completion. I don't wish to get into a 'smart-assed comment' contest with you. Here is their mission. What do you consider a crock of crap. Accomplishment is not the issue. Whoops: 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 |
"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 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." |
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." |
"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? :-) |
"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 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." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com