"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"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?

All sorts of ideas:

1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups causing
the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you got it in
your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other countries that
have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that sometimes,
stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason for it. This
last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both political parties) who
dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say more about this?

2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people,
who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional
enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of
the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig out
of their holes.

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the
exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also
makes you unfit for the office you hold.

4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very
idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging for
happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that they built
a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will cause your
employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not notice how badly
you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old soldiers are interviewed,
they don't sound much different than 16 year olds, in terms of their ability
to put your little war in perspective. Maybe when they're 45, they'll have
some perspective.

5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a new
asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if out of
spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by your war did
the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but throwing their
sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their country club
memberships, it would've been the right thing to do.




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.

Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now. What
the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the rhetoric.


Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we
"enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I
read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We couldn't
ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon technology".
That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than the tense
situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII.

You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids,
because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got
there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about us
into people who think we're animals.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"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?

All sorts of ideas:

1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups causing
the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you got it in
your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other countries that
have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that sometimes,
stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason for it. This
last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both political parties) who
dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say more about this?

Thanks for your insight General.

2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people,
who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional
enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of
the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig out
of their holes.

Like you buddy Johnson did?

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by the
exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which also
makes you unfit for the office you hold.

What are you talking about?

4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very
idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging for
happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that they built
a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will cause your
employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not notice how badly
you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old soldiers are interviewed,
they don't sound much different than 16 year olds, in terms of their ability
to put your little war in perspective. Maybe when they're 45, they'll have
some perspective.

You are a pessimistic delusional twit.

5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a new
asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if out of
spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by your war did
the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but throwing their
sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their country club
memberships, it would've been the right thing to do.

Was that before or after we sacrificed the US troops in Saudi Arabia on
Sept. 12?


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.

Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now. What
the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the rhetoric.


Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both parties.

Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we
"enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I
read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We couldn't
ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon technology".
That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than the tense
situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII.

So, you are in favor of using live humans to test our military weaponry?
How nice of you to think so little of human life.

You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids,
because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got
there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about us
into people who think we're animals.

I thought you and your ilk wanted us out of Iraq last month?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by
the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which
also makes you unfit for the office you hold.

What are you talking about?

This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer
is within.

There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are
doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't
matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few
weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally
interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a
ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park,
and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this
plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that
"the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens
went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the
councilman turned red and left the meeting.

1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with.
2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen.
3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past.
4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being
remembered. "I'm a WAR president!"
5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most
likely found in religion.
6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love
affair with the idea.

Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by
the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which
also makes you unfit for the office you hold.
What are you talking about?

This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your answer
is within.

There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are
doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't
matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few
weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally
interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a
ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront park,
and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants for this
plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman insisted that
"the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one, the two citizens
went through the list of reasons below, and when they got to #6, the
councilman turned red and left the meeting.

1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with.
2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen.
3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past.
4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of being
remembered. "I'm a WAR president!"
5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most
likely found in religion.
6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his love
affair with the idea.

Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed.

He is our President!

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You are really full of yourself today!

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven
by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and
which also makes you unfit for the office you hold.
What are you talking about?

This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your
answer is within.

There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are
doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't
matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few
weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally
interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a
ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront
park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants
for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman
insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one,
the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they
got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting.

1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with.
2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen.
3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past.
4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of
being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!"
5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most
likely found in religion.
6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his
love affair with the idea.

Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed.

He is our President!

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You are really full of yourself today!


I've disowned him. He's YOUR president. His father was another story. I
didn't agree with everything he did, but I was still willing to use the word
"my" with regard to him.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven
by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and
which also makes you unfit for the office you hold.
What are you talking about?
This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your
answer is within.

There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which are
doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It doesn't
matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works project. A few
weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman was brutally
interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment meeting for a
ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a beautiful waterfront
park, and which only the politicians are in love with. The consultants
for this plan think 400 apartments would be feasible. The councilman
insisted that "the area could probably support 1000 units". One by one,
the two citizens went through the list of reasons below, and when they
got to #6, the councilman turned red and left the meeting.

1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love with.
2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen.
3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past.
4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of
being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!"
5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is most
likely found in religion.
6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his
love affair with the idea.

Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed.
He is our President!

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You are really full of yourself today!


I've disowned him. He's YOUR president. His father was another story. I
didn't agree with everything he did, but I was still willing to use the word
"my" with regard to him.

You really are an idiot.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven
by the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and
which also makes you unfit for the office you hold.
What are you talking about?
This is probably too long a response for you to cope with, but your
answer is within.

There's a very short list of reasons why politicians do things which
are doomed to failure before they even leave the planning stage. It
doesn't matter whether it's a war, or some lame-ass public works
project. A few weeks ago, I watched with great joy as a city councilman
was brutally interrogated by a couple of citizens at a public comment
meeting for a ridiculous apartment project that will destroy a
beautiful waterfront park, and which only the politicians are in love
with. The consultants for this plan think 400 apartments would be
feasible. The councilman insisted that "the area could probably support
1000 units". One by one, the two citizens went through the list of
reasons below, and when they got to #6, the councilman turned red and
left the meeting.

1) Too stupid or incompetent to see what a bad plan they're in love
with.
2) Too young to be aware of history and too proud or stupid to listen.
3) Old enough to know better, but too stupid to learn from the past.
4) Ego out of control - must do something, ANYTHING with the hope of
being remembered. "I'm a WAR president!"
5) Blind faith in the idea. This takes training, which I believe is
most likely found in religion.
6) Crooked: The politician is receiving some kind of incentive for his
love affair with the idea.

Your president certainly falls into category 1, 3, 4 and 5. Guaranteed.
He is our President!

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

You are really full of yourself today!


I've disowned him. He's YOUR president. His father was another story. I
didn't agree with everything he did, but I was still willing to use the
word "my" with regard to him.

You really are an idiot.

It just bothers you that I don't automatically bestow respect on someone
because of their title. There are many like you. I don't recall in which NG
it was where I insisted on using the word "employees" to describe police
officers. Someone became insanely angry because I refused to allow the term
"public servant" into the discussion. I believe that person was on the verge
of a stroke because of his anger.

You apply all sorts of nonsensical terms to the office of president, like
commander in chief, which, in your mind, exalts Bush to god-like status.
Wrong. He is an employee. He never would've gotten past the first interview
at many companies, unless they were looking for someone to rake leaves.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"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?

All sorts of ideas:

1) If you're a competent leader, you notice that the various groups
causing the trouble have been at each other's throats since before you
got it in your head to "help". You learn from the experiences of other
countries that have had their heads handed to them. You also notice that
sometimes, stability is a good thing, even if you don't like the reason
for it. This last FACT was obvious to past presidents (from both
political parties) who dwarfed your intellectual capabilities. Need I say
more about this?

Thanks for your insight General.

2) If you're a competent leader, you listen to your best military people,
who, from the beginning, told you that we'd be facing a non-traditional
enemy which, depending on the specific city, time of day, and position of
the moon and stars, might have popular support and be impossible to dig
out of their holes.

Like you buddy Johnson did?

3) If you're a competent leader, you realize that the enemy is driven by
the exact same religious zeal that drives your own decisions, and which
also makes you unfit for the office you hold.

What are you talking about?

4) If you're a competent PARENT, you realize that kids are still very
idealistic at age 19. So, you don't tell your underlings to go digging
for happy tra-la-la stories about kids who think it's delightful that
they built a school for some Iraqi kids, and hope these stories will
cause your employers (aka "voters") to enter a trance state and not
notice how badly you screwed up. You notice that when 19 year old
soldiers are interviewed, they don't sound much different than 16 year
olds, in terms of their ability to put your little war in perspective.
Maybe when they're 45, they'll have some perspective.

You are a pessimistic delusional twit.

You forgot arrogant elitist


5) If you're a competent leader, you realize that ripping the Saudis a
new asshole right after 9/11 would've been the right thing to do. Even if
out of spite, they raised the price of oil, the instability created by
your war did the exact same thing. Even if "the rip" involved nothing but
throwing their sorry asses out of the country and cancelling their
country club memberships, it would've been the right thing to do.

Was that before or after we sacrificed the US troops in Saudi Arabia on
Sept. 12?


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.

Good idea. You do it. Or, send your kids & grandkids. Do it right now.
What the hell? They're expendable, right? Anything to support the
rhetoric.


Diplomacy hasn't worked at all in this environment, despite the best
efforts of world leaders including several US Presidents of both
parties.

Remember the stability mentioned in #1, above? About two years after we
"enclosed" Saddam and began flying endless patrols around his borders, I
read an article in which an Air Force general said, in effect, "We
couldn't ask for a better setup for testing every manner of new weapon
technology". That wasn't diplomacy. That was stability, no different than
the tense situation we juggled with the USSR beginning right after WWII.

So, you are in favor of using live humans to test our military weaponry?
How nice of you to think so little of human life.

You'd better have one hell of a good fairy tale ready for your grandkids,
because if we ever leave Iraq, it will be no different than when we got
there, except that we will have converted people who were curious about
us into people who think we're animals.

I thought you and your ilk wanted us out of Iraq last month?

That is what happens to when one swallows the NYT hook line and sinker.