On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
l.earthlink.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe
he
is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast to
what
the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media
lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened
and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things
are
a
total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to tour
the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk
to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside
bombs?


Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it?

Silent about what?

Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and
getting).

John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's
thing
wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or broadcast
networks?


HO, HO, HO!
--
John H

Where did you first see Lieberman's article?


PS. I'm going to see my dentist. I hope you learned a little about the training
of military units. I got to the 196th Light Infantry Brigade in Dec, 1965. The
soldiers in the brigade had just finished their basic training and were starting
their advanced individual training. The unit completed it's training and was
sent to Vietnam about 18 months later, when it completed it's advanced *unit*
training. I can think of no unit which could have trained and been combat
deployable in less time.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@4ax. com...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
tl.earthlink.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe
he
is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast
to
what
the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media
lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened
and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things
are
a
total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to
tour
the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk
to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside
bombs?


Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it?

Silent about what?

Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and
getting).

John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's
thing
wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or
broadcast
networks?


HO, HO, HO!
--
John H

Where did you first see Lieberman's article?


Wall Street Journal, courtesy of NOYB who posted it here. This was after
Hannity
made mention of the fact that *none* of the major media gave it any play.
--
John H

Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"?

John H. wrote:

Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others.



Let's see...you accuse Harry of personal attacks, yet you turn around
and post above. Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you?

"Don White" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:

Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others.



Let's see...you accuse Harry of personal attacks, yet you turn around and
post above. Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you?

Preaching again Pastor Don?

*JimH* wrote:


Preaching again Pastor Don?


I heard they were giving out diplomas in Cracker Jack boxes...somewhere
slightly west of Cleveland OH.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:06:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...


On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a
microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only
1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American
Army
has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority
of
our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as
though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as
yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant by self-sufficient. I
didn't mean they grow their own food and dig a well every time they needed
water. I meant that they didn't need another army (ours) tagging along
with
them to help them do their jobs.

Considering the patience I have for you, I should've been a special ed
teacher.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army
was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if
you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time
that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into
battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training.
He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of
advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's
authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn
how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple
months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the
platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the
companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by
fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure
horse****.

Where did 3 months come from? Your president has been raving forever about
how much progress the Iraqi army is making.


What *you* mean by 'self-sufficient' and what the US generals mean are two
different things.

The 'three months' came from Chris Mathews and some Democrat idiot he had
on his
show, who seemed to think battalions should be ready to go three months
after
they're thought of.

You are leaving out a great number of battalions, purposely I assume, that
can
conduct combat operations with minimal support. That's the group that
falls
between the self-sufficient and the 'follow-up' to American forces.
--
John H

OK - I used the wrong terminology, but it really doesn't matter, does it?
Call them "pieces". If there are 8 possible pieces, and only one is ready
(according to someone YOU trust), that means 87.5% of the pieces are not
ready, however the person YOU trust defines the term "ready". The person YOU
trust is currently a big shot in Iraq, not retired, not a news consultant,
not a news anchor. That eliminates the "Oh yeah? Who said that?" nonsense.


You lost me with the 'YOU trust' stuff. You are the one who referred to a
general's comment about one battalion being self sufficient. .

The question is, "ready for what?"

Being ready to conduct sustained combat operations with *no* external support is
one state of readiness. I know of none of our battalions, except perhaps some
Marine units, who could do so. Being ready to conduct combat operations with
combat support and combat service support is another thing entirely. It is what
most of our Army battalions do. Being able only to hold an area that has been
secured by another unit is the minimal state of readiness.


--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@4ax .com...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
. atl.earthlink.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe
he
is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct contrast
to
what
the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the news
media
lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully completed,
opened
and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location, things
are
a
total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to
tour
the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme risk
to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside
bombs?


Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it?

Silent about what?

Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and
getting).

John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's
thing
wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or
broadcast
networks?


HO, HO, HO!
--
John H

Where did you first see Lieberman's article?


Wall Street Journal, courtesy of NOYB who posted it here. This was after
Hannity
made mention of the fact that *none* of the major media gave it any play.
--
John H

Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"?

Mainstream, perhaps. Major media, no.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:38:34 GMT, Don White wrote:

John H. wrote:

Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others.



Let's see...you accuse Harry of personal attacks, yet you turn around
and post above. Doesn't this seem inconsistent to you?

No. You snipped the portion of the post that made the comment relevant. Why
would you do that?
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:06:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
m...


On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a
microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers,
only
1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American
Army
has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an
SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority
of
our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as
though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as
yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant by self-sufficient. I
didn't mean they grow their own food and dig a well every time they
needed
water. I meant that they didn't need another army (ours) tagging along
with
them to help them do their jobs.

Considering the patience I have for you, I should've been a special ed
teacher.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army
was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America,
if
you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time
that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into
battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic
training.
He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of
advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's
authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals
learn
how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple
months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the
platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the
companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused
by
fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure
horse****.

Where did 3 months come from? Your president has been raving forever
about
how much progress the Iraqi army is making.


What *you* mean by 'self-sufficient' and what the US generals mean are
two
different things.

The 'three months' came from Chris Mathews and some Democrat idiot he
had
on his
show, who seemed to think battalions should be ready to go three months
after
they're thought of.

You are leaving out a great number of battalions, purposely I assume,
that
can
conduct combat operations with minimal support. That's the group that
falls
between the self-sufficient and the 'follow-up' to American forces.
--
John H

OK - I used the wrong terminology, but it really doesn't matter, does it?
Call them "pieces". If there are 8 possible pieces, and only one is ready
(according to someone YOU trust), that means 87.5% of the pieces are not
ready, however the person YOU trust defines the term "ready". The person
YOU
trust is currently a big shot in Iraq, not retired, not a news consultant,
not a news anchor. That eliminates the "Oh yeah? Who said that?" nonsense.


You lost me with the 'YOU trust' stuff. You are the one who referred to a
general's comment about one battalion being self sufficient. .

The "you trust" stuff was used as a safety measure, to crush a type of
response I see here often, occasionally from you, but almost always from
NOYB. It involves questioning the opinion of a source, even if that source
is the only person on earth who could possibly have 100% accurate
information.



The question is, "ready for what?"

Being ready to conduct sustained combat operations with *no* external
support is
one state of readiness. I know of none of our battalions, except perhaps
some
Marine units, who could do so. Being ready to conduct combat operations
with
combat support and combat service support is another thing entirely. It is
what
most of our Army battalions do. Being able only to hold an area that has
been
secured by another unit is the minimal state of readiness.

Are you seriously not understanding this? I'm telling you that Iraqi
battalions cannot function without A FOREIGN ARMY (ours) covering their
behinds. Obviously, our own battalions function with support, but they tend
to be from our own country.

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:52:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:jqduo1142ogneshhoq0aie6199lana70bt@4ax. com...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:36:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:b0duo1ti0qojrsd5c6155p8vnbdtok0lu0@4a x.com...
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:19:52 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
.atl.earthlink.net...

It's not a matter of agreeing with him. The question is: do you
believe
he
is telling the truth?

He stated certain *facts* about Iraq, that are in direct
contrast
to
what
the news media would have us believe. Is he lying or is the
news
media
lying?

Two separate questions for you. Sit down.

1) Is it possible that a new school could be successfully
completed,
opened
and populated in one part of Iraq, while in another location,
things
are
a
total ****ing mess and have only gotten worse?

2) Is it possible that a senator might not be willing or able to
tour
the
second location, where even our own servicemen enter at extreme
risk
to
themselves, in armored vehicles which are not immune to roadside
bombs?


Regardless, Doug. Why is the major media keeping silent about it?

Silent about what?

Lieberman's views, especially given the hype Murtha's gotten (and
getting).

John, I think you need more variety in your news sources. Lieberman's
thing
wasn't buried. Is something wrong with your local newspaper, or
broadcast
networks?


HO, HO, HO!
--
John H

Where did you first see Lieberman's article?


Wall Street Journal, courtesy of NOYB who posted it here. This was after
Hannity
made mention of the fact that *none* of the major media gave it any
play.
--
John H

Do you consider WSJ to fall under the heading of "mainstream press"?

Mainstream, perhaps. Major media, no.

Oh. OK. I see.