"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

And why not? Combat activities in any war will be more intense or less
intense from day to day or week to week, but there *are* positive things
to
be reported, which get little or no mention in the routine coverage here
at
home.


Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week for the past few
months. You wouldn't even know where to find them on the radio dial, though,
would you? Matter of fact, the socialists at the NY Times have done the
same. You wouldn't know about that. You just repeat what the central brain
tells you: "The Media" only reports the negative news.s

Doug Kanter wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

And why not? Combat activities in any war will be more intense or less
intense from day to day or week to week, but there *are* positive things

to

be reported, which get little or no mention in the routine coverage here

at

home.



Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week for the past few
months. You wouldn't even know where to find them on the radio dial, though,
would you? Matter of fact, the socialists at the NY Times have done the
same. You wouldn't know about that. You just repeat what the central brain
tells you: "The Media" only reports the negative news.s



The so-called "good" news coming out of Iraq reminds me of the "good
news" that came out of Vietnam during teh late 1960s and early 1970s.
None of it amounted to crap. The Bush mis-administration is absolutely
clueless.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week

As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that 4 or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much. Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess." You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is useless
when applied to long term problems.

John Gaquin wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week


As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that 4 or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much. Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess." You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is useless
when applied to long term problems.





you have a lot of damned gall even trying to compare 1944 with any of
Bush's fraudulent war in iraq.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John Gaquin wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message

Actually, the hideously left-wing minions at National Public Radio have
reported something positive at least 4-5 times per week


As I am well aware. You'll note I said little or no mention in the
normal
news cycle -- I did not say no coverage at all. I would point out that
4 or
5 items a week in a world of 24/7 news cycles doesn't amount to much.
Up
until the last couple of weeks or so, most of the news from most of Iraq
was
positive. We're in a tough time now, as will always happen in war. I'm
sure that in the week leading up to Christmas of 1944 there were
hand-wringers galore saying "Oh, I told you this invasion was a bad
idea --
now the Germans have started a big attack and its going to be a mess."
You
have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe
what's
happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is
useless
when applied to long term problems.





you have a lot of damned gall even trying to compare 1944 with any of
Bush's fraudulent war in iraq.

Why? There are parallel's.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:14:50 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


You have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe
what's happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is
useless when applied to long term problems.

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.

Ya,, Harry doesn't want to see any comparison of this war,,, especially to
something like Vietnam. UNLESS his hero Kennedy makes it. I will have to
repeat what I said then for you harry,, because your not too smart.

Particularly funny when you consider that Vietnam was Kennedy's war.
His brother is the one who started it.

And, of course, all the comparisons between a war that lasted a decade
and a war that lasted 3 months fail miserably.

Kennedy is and always has been a joke.

You need to quote someone who is not 1) a murderer, 2) an accomplish
to a rape, 3) a drunk.

Harry, you need a new puppet master.


And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower income
earning labor.

Come on Harry,,,, Your not looking too good here, It appears that the
Democrats are banking on the ignorance of the voters again,,,, and you are
falling right into line.,, But I never did think you were too smart there
Harry,,,,







"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:14:50 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


You have to stay focused on the long term strategic goals, and observe
what's happening. Whether its business or military, short term focus is
useless when applied to long term problems.

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.

" Tuuk" wrote in message news:90Ucc.11734

And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president
over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower income
earning labor.

Tuuk, you have to be fair when it is due. Neither John Kerry nor the Kerry
family "owns the firm". Kerry had nothing major to do with Heinz before he
married into it. In fact, his wife had nothing to do with it before SHE
married into it. Heinz is a publicly traded company in which Teresa Heinz,
by virtue of her first husband's death, is a very major shareholder.

Heinz is an international concern in the truest sense of the word. Some 60%
of their sales are outside of the US. Its only reasonable to locate
production close to markets when possible. Last figures I saw indicated
about 60% of sales outside of the US, and about 72% of production outside of
the US. So, they're maybe a little unbalanced, but nowhere near a major
offender.

Much as I'd love to cover him in catsup, this one won't work.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

" Tuuk" wrote in message news:90Ucc.11734

And also there Harry,,, Doesn't the Kerry Family own Heinz Ketchup? Do
you
know how much offshore labor or non American labor is used for making
that
Product? How come when Kerry was asked about this, he only claimed that
he
has nothing to do with the managing of the firm? He (or his wife) own
the
firm, but have no control over management? He criticizes the president
over
his job migration thing, and Kerry himself takes advantage of lower
income
earning labor.

Tuuk, you have to be fair when it is due. Neither John Kerry nor the
Kerry
family "owns the firm". Kerry had nothing major to do with Heinz before
he
married into it. In fact, his wife had nothing to do with it before SHE
married into it. Heinz is a publicly traded company in which Teresa
Heinz,
by virtue of her first husband's death, is a very major shareholder.

Heinz is an international concern in the truest sense of the word. Some
60%
of their sales are outside of the US. Its only reasonable to locate
production close to markets when possible.

.....especially for food products whose raw materials are highly perishable,
like tomatoes. This logic probably escaped Tuuk, though. :-)

"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant force,
and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for al Qaeda.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the entire
northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both communicated
with the US, indicating a preference for a softer, non-militant,
non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an end
to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power in
the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the region,
see their influence jeopardized.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most indicating
a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just a
battle.