"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up
for you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from
our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the
same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.
No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity,
and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I
watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last
week. It was an incredible performance.
Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s.

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration
and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he
would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait
for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are
not connected with his reputation?

I thought it was the intent rather than the action that determines the
effectiveness of a person or a project?

That makes no sense. If a project fails, but you gave it your best effort,
then your intent was wrong?

Bush *needed* a war, for personal reasons. Cheney needed it for his own
reasons. It had nothing at all to do with the good of this country.

Bert Robbins wrote:

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration
and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.

Since you brought up Bush.... caught part of his newsconference from
the ranch yesterday. He didn't look or sound that good.
Too much RnR?

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration
and "Big Oil" and things will become clear.

Since you brought up Bush.... caught part of his newsconference from the
ranch yesterday. He didn't look or sound that good.
Too much RnR?

He didn't have a script. He was terrified.

Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:17:54 GMT, Don White
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


That would be a great name for a band.

Damn Canadian Aliens from Outer Space

It could be a transitional techno-industrial-dance-rhythm and blues
band with a touch of French influence.

OH OH!!
Damn French Canadian Aliens from Outer Space.

Much bettererrer.

Why are you dissin' the French?


"Dissin' the French?"

Absolutely not - I don't know how you could read that as a diss.

Personally, I would love to play lead guitar in a band named Damn
French Canadian Aliens from Outer Space.

It's just a great name for a band.


They softened the Viet Cong up for you all through the 50's and you
still couldn't win.


Now see, that was uncalled for.

Just having some fun and you took it down to the lowest level.

Lighten up.


Actually, I was just throwing the joke back. Seems a lot of people
are still super sensitive about that war.
I have the feeling that you did your duty and more on your tours so
I'm certainly not saying the loss reflects on you.
Seems a few clown in here think you need a nanny. They insult you more
than I ever could.
As far as the idiot who claims I hate all things American...wonder if
he got the point I made by quoting an American to suit the circumstance.




The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity
in the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take
on and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller
than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having
so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.



Western countries, like ours, aren't ruthless enough to just go in and
sanitize entire areas to really clean out the problem. I thought the
Israelis might be...but I imagine the US and world opinion are having
some effect.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in
the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on and
defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller than
ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having so
much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.



So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed,
non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden come
immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up?

Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at all
the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and slowly
diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism. Diplomacy
hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best efforts of world
leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

I agree with you that our military has been traditionally equipped and
trained for massive retaliation, designed to win as quickly as possible.
The new warfare requires new tactics, particularly commitment, patience and
tenacity. We aren't going to see major battles won.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in
the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on and
defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller than
ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having so
much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.




So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed,
non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden come
immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up?

Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at all
the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and slowly
diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism. Diplomacy
hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best efforts of world
leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

I agree with you that our military has been traditionally equipped and
trained for massive retaliation, designed to win as quickly as possible.
The new warfare requires new tactics, particularly commitment, patience and
tenacity. We aren't going to see major battles won.

Eisboch


We may have to ask Saddam for advice. He seemed good at keeping various
groups in line.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:33:07 GMT, Don White
wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:13:16 GMT, Don White
wrote:



RG wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
...



Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:




That would be a great name for a band.

Damn Canadian Aliens from Outer Space

It could be a transitional techno-industrial-dance-rhythm and blues
band with a touch of French influence.

OH OH!! Damn French Canadian Aliens from Outer Space.

Much bettererrer.


Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for you al
through the 50's and you still couldn't win.

That's an awfully gauche and classless comment to make to a known Viet Nam
vet, in my opinion. Once again, you find it impossible to contain your
complete disdain for any and all things American. You're such an asshole,
Don.


Stupid is as stupid says!


Tsk - come on man - get with the program.

Have some fun with it.

Come up with a name for your own band.

Damn French Canadian Aliens from Outer Space is mine. We'll be
releasing our first CD in another year to so.

Shouldn't be so jealous. :)

Jealous of what Tom?
The only thing you have that I want is yankee dollahs. ;-)


Bet you'd take my Halman if I gave it to you. :)

Oh yeah...forgot about that.
You'd probably have to give me a bigger truck too. My little Ranger
shouldn't pull more than 2500 lbs.
With all the crappy shallow launch ramps here...it might have been
smarter to go with a bigger boat and join a proper yacht club with a
mooring field.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:38:02 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having so
much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.

Unless you are a *native* army, very, very few have defeated a guerrilla
movement. It's mostly because the solution isn't a military one, it's a
political one. If you can't win the "hearts and minds" of the population,
you are in for a long war of attrition. I don't think our army can win in
Iraq. However, with luck, the Iraqi Army might.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

The loss in Vietnam was a harbinger.

I'm sure our military forces can take on and defeat any modern uniformed
military force waging traditional warfare, assuming no great disparity in
the order of battle or availability of troops. That is, we can take on
and defeat uniformed, traditionally organized forces that are smaller
than ours, the same size as ours or perhaps somewhat larger.

What our military cannot do is defeat a large, well-organized,
non-uniformed and non-traditional group or groups of motivated partisans
in areas outside of urban areas. Thus, we flopped in Vietnam and we're
flopping in Iraq, even though we defeated the Iraqi army, and why the
Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan, and why the Israelis are having
so much trouble with Hezbollah and Hamas.




So .... assuming for the moment that a well-organized, non-uniformed,
non-traditional group deserves to be defeated (Al Qaeda and Bin Laden
come immediately to mind) ... how do you win? Or do you simply give up?

Seems to me you have to keep trying ... picking away at the core and at
all the supporting elements, learning as you go, modifying tactics and
slowly diminishing the enemy's ability to conduct warfare or terrorism.
Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

I agree with you that our military has been traditionally equipped and
trained for massive retaliation, designed to win as quickly as possible.
The new warfare requires new tactics, particularly commitment, patience
and tenacity. We aren't going to see major battles won.

Eisboch


We may have to ask Saddam for advice. He seemed good at keeping various
groups in line.


Yeah. He called a meeting and had anyone who disagreed with him shot.

Eisboch

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:58:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

wrote:
Don White wrote:

Why are you dissin' the French? They softened the Viet Cong up for
you
al through the 50's and you still couldn't win.
Courtesy of the Paris "peace" talks?

I'll diss the french on that one
What's absolutely amazing is that we didn't seem to learn much from
our
war against Vietnam and its various "insurgencies." I'm hearing the
same
sorts of really stupid talk from our Prez and company about our war
against Iraq as I remember from the late 1960s and early 1970s, and
there is still a large percentage of American people who actually
believe the Chimp-in-Chief and his henchmen. When will they ever
learn?
I'm not sure you can directly analogize the Vietnam conflict with the
Iraqi War, but I get your point.

No, the conflicts are not the same, but the callousness, stupidity, and
b.s. coming from our national leaders is pretty much the same. I watched
Rumsfeld testifying last week, no, telling one lie after another last
week. It was an incredible performance.

Hell, all of the talk radio Fox news types are saying we are in WW3 and
claiming that this is just like the rise of the Nazis in the late '30s.


All you have to do is get past your hatred for the Bush administration and
"Big Oil" and things will become clear.

You've got it backwards. Any chance that if Bush had NOT invaded Iraq, he
would have more friends, or at least more people who would patiently wait
for him to vanish from public life? Or, do you think a person's deeds are
not connected with his reputation?

Pre-war Iraqi output = more than 2.2 million barrels
In May, 2006 output = 1.1 million barrels. Even Bert should be able to
figure out that yes, BushCo DID help cause our current conditions.