From Harley Sorenson:


"Bring 'em on," the man said. He is not a brave man, but he plays one
on television.

When it came his turn to fight in a war, he hid behind Daddy. Then he
had another drink and hid from the National Guard. Then he had another
drink.

When our nation was attacked on Sept. 11, he hid in an airplane,
flying to and fro around the country. While our nation was crying for
leadership, he was making sure the coast was clear.

He later had his minions blame the Secret Service.

"Bring 'em on," the man said, puffing up his chest. And they did bring
'em on, one bomb at a time, one rocket-propelled grenade at a time,
one rifle shot at a time, so terrifying to a relative of mine that she
cried herself to sleep every night she was there.

(Welcome home, baby. They can't get you here.)

And the planes fly into Dover Air Force Base in Delaware (sometimes
sneaking in at midnight), where we have the people and the equipment
to make dead young people look almost like they are sleeping.

Then we send the dead young people home to their parents and brothers
and sisters and grandparents and other relatives and friends, and we
send pretty flags with them, and handsome men in uniform, and we call
the dead young people heroes.

We call them heroes because they're dead. If they were still alive,
we'd be angling to reduce their combat pay and trying to figure out a
way to close the hospitals they'll be entitled to use if they survive.

"Bring 'em on," the man said, and a nation of sheep baaed in unison
and said what a good boy is Georgie, and how thankful we can be that
we have a regular guy like him at the helm instead of that wimpy Al
Gore.

A couple generations ago, we used to kid about "Georgie Porgie puddin'
and pie, kissed the girls and made them cry," but we had no idea then
that there really was a Georgie Porgie, who was just waiting for his
chance to show us how brave a coward can appear if he wears a tailored
flight uniform.

Our brilliant generals were outsmarted by the clever Saddam Hussein,
the wily sadist who fancies himself the reincarnation of Joe Stalin.
We wondered at the time why the elite Republican Guard failed to stand
up and fight. Now we know.

You may recall reading about the Battle of Stalingrad in World War II.
The advancing Germans were met by a thin line of Soviet troops
encircling the city. The Germans pushed through that line easily
enough, but then they met a second line, a little tougher than the
first one and reinforced by troops that retreated from the first line.

Then there was a third line, a fourth line and so forth, and
eventually the overextended Germans, who had outrun their supply lines
and were freezing in the Russian winter, were ripe for a
counterattack. The Soviets encircled them, trapped them and killed
many. Tens of thousands more were taken prisoner and died in
captivity.

Going into the battle, the Germans were the superior force, but the
Soviets outsmarted them.

The Republican Guard in Iraq was no match for our airplanes and bombs
and rockets, so, in a trick right out of Joe Stalin's playbook, it
melted away in civilian clothes to fight another day. Now it's picking
off our troops one by one, reinforced by volunteers from neighboring
nations who knew exactly what to do when our president said, "Bring
'em on."

He invited, they came. And the morticians at Dover stay busy.

Nobody doubted that America's frontal attack on Iraq would succeed,
but most of the world had doubts about what would happen next.
Unfortunately for our boys and girls in Iraq, few of the doubters were
residents or regular visitors of our White House.

Other than Israel, nobody in the Middle East wants us to control the
flow of oil out of Iraq. Why would they? We're the 800-pound gorilla.
We're violent and unpredictable. Nobody knows what we'll do next. Mr.
Bring-'em-On has already threatened Iran and, on the other side of the
world, North Korea.

Can you imagine Mr. Bring-'em-On in a street fight? Try to picture him
lipping off in a bar: "Hey, buddy, keep it up, and my bodyguards will
pound the snot out of you." He's the personification of the "let's you
and him fight" syndrome.

His crony, the aging Donald Rumsfeld, who could in his day fight his
own battles, now dreams of the past. He dreams of a "fleet" and
"swift" and "agile" military machine. Fleet and swift and agile were
personal qualities of a younger Donald Rumsfeld, but now they exist
only in his fantasies.

Rumsfeld's dream team in Iraq is in over its head, so now the talk is
of sending in more troops, or, as the Iraqis call them, targets.

Can you say "Vietnam," boys and girls? When do we start engraving
names into a stark black wall?

The war is unwinnable. As in Vietnam, we are the invaders, invaders of
a country that presented no threat to us. As with Vietnam, we lied to
the world as to our motives. We said we wanted to destroy Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction (done) and get rid of Saddam (done).

So why are will still there?

Besides stealing Iraqi oil, our politicians want to save face. If they
pull our troops out now, they reason, the rest of the world will laugh
at them. "Ha-ha-ha," the world will say. "Silly Americans."

Can't have that. Better to continue repressing the 25 million people
of Iraq, who will continue to respond by picking off our troops, one
by one.

Can't have a red face.

Little do those egomaniacs realize that the rest of the world will
stand and applaud if we leave Iraq. "Finally," the world will say.
"Finally, the Americans are using good sense. Bully for you,
Americans."

But admitting our mistake and leaving Iraq is not likely to happen.
Even if we elect a new president next year, we voters can't win. The
new guy, whoever he is, will be afraid to pull out of Iraq for fear
the opposition party will label him "soft on terrorism" or "weak on
national defense."

We've seen all this before, with Vietnam. Presidents of both parties
kept the war going because none wanted to be "the first American
president to lose a war."

Ego. Hundreds of thousands died so that a handful of men would not (in
least in their opinion) lose face.

The solution to the Iraq problem is to get out. Now. Today. Let the
Iraqis rule themselves. Meanwhile, go to the U.N. and offer as much
assistance as humanly possible to help the Iraqis rebuild their
country.

Bush and his minions used to tell us that we had no quarrel with the
Iraqi people, that it was Saddam we were after.

Well, Saddam has vanished. Who is our enemy now?

Don't feel like being "Walt Arvin" today?

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
From Harley Sorenson:

So why are will still there?

Besides stealing Iraqi oil, our politicians want to save face. If they
pull our troops out now, they reason, the rest of the world will laugh
at them. "Ha-ha-ha," the world will say. "Silly Americans."

Can't have that. Better to continue repressing the 25 million people
of Iraq, who will continue to respond by picking off our troops, one
by one.

Can't have a red face.

It's not about a "red face". Leaving Somalia after 19 of our guys got
killed sent the worst message possible...that we could be cowed into leaving
an unfinished job. In hindsight, I think if Clinton had to do it again,
he'd have sent more troops in rather than pull the others out. It sent a
very bad message to terrorists that our will can be broken pretty easily
once the casualties start to mount. I'm sure that played a large role in
the 9/11 attack.



Little do those egomaniacs realize that the rest of the world will
stand and applaud if we leave Iraq. "Finally," the world will say.
"Finally, the Americans are using good sense.

Not likely. They'll say "Finally, the Americans got what was coming to
them."

Bully for you,
Americans."




But admitting our mistake and leaving Iraq is not likely to happen.
Even if we elect a new president next year

Again, not likely.


we voters can't win.

*You* Democratic voters can't win. *We* Republican voters are doing fine.


The
new guy, whoever he is, will be afraid to pull out of Iraq for fear
the opposition party will label him "soft on terrorism" or "weak on
national defense."

Not just the opposition party...the terrorists will also.


We've seen all this before, with Vietnam. Presidents of both parties
kept the war going because none wanted to be "the first American
president to lose a war."

Both parties? In 1965, LBJ sent the troops in. In 1973, Nixon brought the
troops out. Was there somebody in between who I don't know about?




Ego. Hundreds of thousands died so that a handful of men would not (in
least in their opinion) lose face.



The solution to the Iraq problem is to get out. Now. Today. Let the
Iraqis rule themselves. Meanwhile, go to the U.N. and offer as much
assistance as humanly possible to help the Iraqis rebuild their
country.

Even if Saddam and the Baath party comes back?



Bush and his minions used to tell us that we had no quarrel with the
Iraqi people, that it was Saddam we were after.

Well, Saddam has vanished. Who is our enemy now?

Saddam. He's still alive, correct?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:22:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Anti-psychotic meds are working. He's back down to just one personality for
now.

And you religiously read and reply to both of them.

bb

On 25 Aug 2003 08:46:45 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

From Harley Sorenson:

Most of diatribe snipped.

The Republican Guard in Iraq was no match for our airplanes and bombs
and rockets, so, in a trick right out of Joe Stalin's playbook, it
melted away in civilian clothes to fight another day. Now it's picking
off our troops one by one, reinforced by volunteers from neighboring
nations who knew exactly what to do when our president said, "Bring
'em on."

And right there, IMHO, is where we made a big boo-boo. We let humanitarian
considerations take precedence. We didn't get behind the Republican Guard, et
al, and waste their young asses when they turned to run.

[A bunch more snipped]

Rumsfeld's dream team in Iraq is in over its head, so now the talk is
of sending in more troops, or, as the Iraqis call them, targets.

And most of the talk is from the Dems who think they know more than the generals
on the ground. More troops does mean more targets. Rumsfeld isn't asking for
more troops.

Can you say "Vietnam," boys and girls? When do we start engraving
names into a stark black wall?

This war and Vietnam have almost nothing, other than the use of American
soldiers, in common.

The war is unwinnable. As in Vietnam, we are the invaders, invaders of
a country that presented no threat to us. As with Vietnam, we lied to
the world as to our motives. We said we wanted to destroy Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction (done) and get rid of Saddam (done).

So why are will still there?

Because the job isn't finished. Iraq does not yet have a government able to
manage the country.

Besides stealing Iraqi oil, our politicians want to save face. If they
pull our troops out now, they reason, the rest of the world will laugh
at them. "Ha-ha-ha," the world will say. "Silly Americans."

Ah, the 'oil stealing' ploy. Do you honestly believe that all the other nations
in the world, the United Nations, and even the smartest people in the world
(Democrats) would be so blind as to not catch the USofA stealing oil from the
Iraqi's?


Can't have that. Better to continue repressing the 25 million people
of Iraq, who will continue to respond by picking off our troops, one
by one.

It's not the 25 million Iraqi's doing the picking off. It's those Republican
Guards who got away. ( Don't you remember your own damn argument above?)

[Even more snipped]

But admitting our mistake and leaving Iraq is not likely to happen.
Even if we elect a new president next year, we voters can't win. The
new guy, whoever he is, will be afraid to pull out of Iraq for fear
the opposition party will label him "soft on terrorism" or "weak on
national defense."

The above makes absolutely no sense. If we should not be there, then we should
pull out. If the new guy, whoever he is, is 'afraid to pull out for fear the
opposition party will label him', then the new guy shouldn't have been there in
the first place. He will have been without principles.

[Only a couple paragraphs snipped here]

The solution to the Iraq problem is to get out. Now. Today. Let the
Iraqis rule themselves. Meanwhile, go to the U.N. and offer as much
assistance as humanly possible to help the Iraqis rebuild their
country.

The Iraqis would not rebuild their country. The Baath party would resume
operations. Millions more would die, and the country would very soon be under
the control of Saddam Hussein again.


Bush and his minions used to tell us that we had no quarrel with the
Iraqi people, that it was Saddam we were after.

Well, Saddam has vanished. Who is our enemy now?

Saddam and his loyalists.

If this was your thinking, basskisser, then I can understand the comments some
have made about you. I won't.

If you just cut'n'pasted it, like jps, and it's not your thinking, then why did
you paste this tripe?

Have a great day!


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:19:03 +0000, JohnH wrote:


And right there, IMHO, is where we made a big boo-boo. We let
humanitarian considerations take precedence. We didn't get behind
the Republican Guard, et al, and waste their young asses when they
turned to run.

That would have been down right treacherous on our part. Part of
the pre-war strategy was to bribe many of the Iraqi military not to
fight.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...5-082954-2864r


And most of the talk is from the Dems who think they know more than
the generals on the ground. More troops does mean more targets.
Rumsfeld isn't asking for more troops.

I would suggest that it is Rumsfeld who thinks he knows more than
the generals on the ground. He is the one who kept pushing for a
leaner war plan. Rumsfeld has fought this war from a business man's
perspective, not from a general's. Do you remember the heat Gen.
Shinseki took for his estimation of occupation forces?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm

The war is unwinnable. As in Vietnam, we are the invaders, invaders of
a country that presented no threat to us. As with Vietnam, we lied to
the world as to our motives. We said we wanted to destroy Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction (done) and get rid of Saddam (done).

So why are will still there?

Saddam lives.
WMD cannot be disproven, only the story that we knew all along where they were
hidden and were arbitrarily keeping the info from the UN inspectors to see if
they were willing to do a thorough search for them. WMD seem increasingly
unlikely, as most of these things have no more than a 3-year effective shelf
life and that last time we know for (an undiputed fact) that SH put any
together was in 1998. *If* there are WMD in Iraq, it would be a good idea to
find them.

Ask George B. and the New American Century cabinet why we're still in Iraq, and
the answer will be that we are going to help the Iraqi people establish a
democracy. Ask most Iraqi people to define a democracy, and it's not an
absolute certainty that the majority would even know what the concept
represents- let alone think that it is the most desirable option.

It's impossible to impose a democracy. Unless democracy is a free choice, it
isn't a democracy from the very first minute of the new regime.

Respecting the right of people to freely choose a form of government should be
a supreme American value- even if they choose something dissimilar to what we
prefer and that has worked well for all these years in the US.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:30:44 -0400, "thunder" wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 14:19:03 +0000, JohnH wrote:


And right there, IMHO, is where we made a big boo-boo. We let
humanitarian considerations take precedence. We didn't get behind
the Republican Guard, et al, and waste their young asses when they
turned to run.

That would have been down right treacherous on our part. Part of
the pre-war strategy was to bribe many of the Iraqi military not to
fight.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...5-082954-2864r


And most of the talk is from the Dems who think they know more than
the generals on the ground. More troops does mean more targets.
Rumsfeld isn't asking for more troops.

I would suggest that it is Rumsfeld who thinks he knows more than
the generals on the ground. He is the one who kept pushing for a
leaner war plan. Rumsfeld has fought this war from a business man's
perspective, not from a general's. Do you remember the heat Gen.
Shinseki took for his estimation of occupation forces?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...agoncontra.htm


Wow, what an unbiased, totally believable source:

"Citing a senior Iraqi source, the French newspaper reported that Soufiane al
Tikriti, head of the Special Republican Guard in Baghdad, ordered his troops not
to defend the capital against attack by U.S. and British forces, and
particularly to hold fire against coalition helicopters circling over the city."

Far be it from me to argue with a French newspaper citing a (unidentified)
senior Iraqi source!.

I am in no position to judge the number of soldiers needed on the ground. The
generals fighting the ground action are in such a position. As of now, they are
saying they don't need more US troops. General Abizaid has no reason to lie, but
he does have reason to succeed.

The goal is, and must be, for the Iraqis to take over their own security and
government. Of course, if our only aim is to steal Iraqi oil, then for sure we
should have more troops to prevent the Iraqis from ever doing that.

Respectfully,

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

bb wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:22:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Anti-psychotic meds are working. He's back down to just one personality for
now.

And you religiously read and reply to both of them.

bb

Nyuk, Nyuk!! My mission is working nicely!

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:53:04 -0400, JohnH wrote:


Wow, what an unbiased, totally believable source:

OK, I'll give you that wasn't the most credible source, but how about Gen.
Tommy Franks. Bribery was used, and it was a smart thing to do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...q-bribes01.htm


Far be it from me to argue with a French newspaper citing a
(unidentified) senior Iraqi source!.

I am in no position to judge the number of soldiers needed on the
ground. The generals fighting the ground action are in such a position.
As of now, they are saying they don't need more US troops. General
Abizaid has no reason to lie, but he does have reason to succeed.

The key word there may be *US* troops. We seem to be trying to recruit
Poles, Indians, and God forbid, UN troops, to help out.

The goal is, and must be, for the Iraqis to take over their own security
and government. Of course, if our only aim is to steal Iraqi oil, then
for sure we should have more troops to prevent the Iraqis from ever
doing that.

That goal would be a lot easier to attain if the country was stable. I
don't believe our goal is to steal Iraqi oil, but to increase our
influence in an unstable area that is vital to our interests. An
interesting read:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ma_273_01.html

You may like the job Rumsfeld is doing, but I think GWB ought to fire him.
It appears that his Office of Special Plans was the source of much of the
faulty WMD intelligence. Another interesting read:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact