Mission accomplished +5



William Asher wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:1127d319-1b9c-4f97-bd5b-b390fe2833e9@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>> Why don't you make one of those charts for the French?
>>
>>
>
> Probably not necessary. Most French can read english well enough to figure
> the plot out without redoing it specifically for them.
>

No, I think he wants to see a chart of the French troops killed in Iraq.
 
On May 1, 2:29 pm, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > On May 1, 8:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > > > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years ago.
>
> > > And your expertise in strategic and/or operational war-planning is
> > > based on what experience?
>
> > He was an officer. What about you?
>
> Scott was an army officer. Peter was a pilot.

There's our problem. We got into a situation
that involved us in a long-standing, irreconcilable
sectarian dispute.

Not Sunni vs. Shiite, that is. I'm talking about
Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Ben
 
On May 1, 3:46 pm, Bret <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 3:39 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bret" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
> > On May 1, 2:22 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >news:9da6b02a-ad1a-4d65-aa91-37121a01f570@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On May 1, 8:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > > > > > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years
> > > > > > ago.
>
> > > > > And your expertise in strategic and/or operational war-planning is
> > > > > based on what experience?
>
> > > > He was an officer. What about you?
>
> > > Scott was an army officer. Peter was a pilot.
>
> > Are you unaware that pilots are officers?
>
> No, I am not unaware that pilots are officers. Are pilot officers
> typically well trained in operational war planning?
>
> Bret- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Some are, particularly if they progress far enough up the ranks.

I didn't progress that far, and therefore I don't have any particular
expertise in strategic war planning. But, I'm not trying to present
my views on the subject as all that valid. I just wish people with no
particular knowledge or expertise in the subject would stop making
such definitive statements as if they actually had a clue as to what's
going on or what should've been done differently.

S.
 
On May 1, 1:04 pm, Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 8:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 1, 4:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>
> > > Well, it looks like the rate of death is tapering off, which is
> > > evidence the surge is working. We should respect the judgement of the
> > > commanders on the ground. The next sixth months will be critical.
>
> > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years ago.
>
> And your expertise in strategic and/or operational war-planning is
> based on what experience?

All that was needed to prevent this mess from ever happening was
common sense and the right priorities. The first priorities should
have been taking out bin Laden and wiping out Al-Qaeda, then
stabilizing Afghanistan.

Is that not obvious?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and presented no threat to us. Saudi
Arabia is the root source of Sunni fanaticism and Iran is the root
source of Shia fanaticism. They should have been the next targets,
not Iraq.

The Iraq war is Bush's gift to the Iranian ayatollahs. They are the
big winners in all this, he's handed them Iraq on a silver platter.

You don't need any "expertise in strategic and/or operational war-
planning" to see the obvious- immediately after 9/11 the commander-in-
chief should have given the order to wipe out bin Laden and Al-Qaeda
at all costs. Instead they diverted assets to the totally
unnecessary Iraq invasion and allowed bin Laden to escape and
regroup. This"war on terror" precisely meets the definition of FUBAR.
-Paul
 
On Thu, 1 May 2008 09:45:26 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On May 1, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>>
>> Well, it looks like the rate of death is tapering off, which is
>> evidence the surge is working. We should respect the judgement of the
>> commanders on the ground. The next sixth months will be critical.
>
>US Troops killed in action in 2008:
>Feb 29
>Mar 39
>Apr 51
>
>I don't think that meets the definition of "tapering off".
>Source: http://icasualties.org/oif/

I can't understand how you can sit there and embolden the enemy.
 
On Thu, 1 May 2008 15:26:36 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>There's our problem. We got into a situation
>that involved us in a long-standing, irreconcilable
>sectarian dispute.
>
>Not Sunni vs. Shiite, that is. I'm talking about
>Army, Navy, and Air Force.
>
Funny.
 
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a5098621-0d89-45e9-9dd7-1871439b2eb3@w74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> I didn't progress that far, and therefore I don't have any particular
> expertise in strategic war planning. But, I'm not trying to present
> my views on the subject as all that valid. I just wish people with no
> particular knowledge or expertise in the subject would stop making
> such definitive statements as if they actually had a clue as to what's
> going on or what should've been done differently.

Then be careful that others here don't present your views as some sort of
expert opinions.

What is plain is that doing nothing was wrong and what was done wasn't done
properly. So while what was done was wrong the direction was something we
were forced into and we must respond.

However, what bothers me most about modern war is that those who wish to win
must be willing to work at winning the longest so that those who oppose them
finally give up. What is disturbing is that too many Americans believe that
giving up is somehow the right thing to do.
 
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5aac76e6-8080-4420-b730-0317c49a4fa5@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> All that was needed to prevent this mess from ever happening was
> common sense and the right priorities. The first priorities should
> have been taking out bin Laden and wiping out Al-Qaeda, then
> stabilizing Afghanistan.

Sorry but you're wrong. While bin Laden was the face of Al-Qaeda he isn't
the heart. That's the violent heart of extremist Islam who need an enemy to
feel holy.

> Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and presented no threat to us.

Tell me, what exactly do you know about it? Do you suppose that our leaders
simply flipped a coin and went to war? Or maybe they had a great deal more
intelligence than you or I have and knew something that we don't know and
probably will never know?

> Saudi Arabia is the root source of Sunni fanaticism and Iran is the
> root source of Shia fanaticism. They should have been the next
> targets, not Iraq.

There you go - someone who absolutely doesn't believe in Freedom of
Religion.

While us lowly Americans believe that we can only respond in kind.
 
On May 1, 4:06 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Instead they diverted assets to the totally
> unnecessary ______.


Dumbassbag,

That's guvmint for ya.
 
On May 1, 4:27 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 09:45:26 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 1, 3:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>
> >> Well, it looks like the rate of death is tapering off, which is
> >> evidence the surge is working. We should respect the judgement of the
> >> commanders on the ground. The next sixth months will be critical.
>
> >US Troops killed in action in 2008:
> >Feb 29
> >Mar 39
> >Apr 51
>
> >I don't think that meets the definition of "tapering off".
> >Source:http://icasualties.org/oif/
>
> I can't understand how you can sit there and embolden the enemy.

I'm sorry. Your post was an exact replica of Bush admin propaganda,
which is indeed irony when repeated by someone who knows better.
"Mission accomplished!"
-Paul
 
On May 1, 5:12 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 4:06 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Instead they diverted assets to the totally
> > unnecessary ______.
>
> Dumbassbag,
>
> That's guvmint for ya.

That's guvmint "Republican't style" for ya.

The Democrat-controlled govt whipped the Germans and Japanese in less
than 4 yrs in WWII.
-Paul
 
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:498a0b19-d3b2-4c0e-9ed3-62ec480537d4@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 1, 5:12 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On May 1, 4:06 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Instead they diverted assets to the totally
>> > unnecessary ______.
>>
>> Dumbassbag,
>>
>> That's guvmint for ya.
>
> That's guvmint "Republican't style" for ya.
>
> The Democrat-controlled govt whipped the Germans and Japanese in less
> than 4 yrs in WWII.

I hate to point this out but the Liberals who control the Democrat party now
kicked out "those kind" of Democrats in the 60's. They all moved over to the
Republican Party and those are the same people you're now criticizing.
 
On May 1, 3:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3edd5769-c726-488d-a5d4-743d7a33a135@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The big mistakes were the grand strategic/political decisions. The de-
> > Baathification of Iraq and the removal of the power structure that
> > kept the various factions in Iraq in check. The decision to abandon
> > containment.
>
> In other words - we should have retained the minority power structure that
> was holding everything else in check by murder and force of arms.



Jackass -


That is correct.

Why? Because it's the way things are done in the Middle East. For
instance Kuwait, whose regime we restored to power in the 1991 Gulf
War, is a monarchy as is our "ally" Saudi Arabia.

A monarchy, by definition, gives its power to a very tiny minority of
the population. A family. The Baathists, by contrast, made up 20% of
the population of Iraq. That's one of the very basic cultural
subtleties of which the neocons and ignoramouses like yourself are
unaware.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.
 
On May 1, 4:40 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5aac76e6-8080-4420-b730-0317c49a4fa5@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > All that was needed to prevent this mess from ever happening was
> > common sense and the right priorities. The first priorities should
> > have been taking out bin Laden and wiping out Al-Qaeda, then
> > stabilizing Afghanistan.
>
> Sorry but you're wrong. While bin Laden was the face of Al-Qaeda he isn't
> the heart. That's the violent heart of extremist Islam who need an enemy to
> feel holy.
>

Sorry, but I'm right. I wipe my ass with stuff that's smarter than
you are.

> > Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and presented no threat to us.
>
> Tell me, what exactly do you know about it? Do you suppose that our leaders
> simply flipped a coin and went to war? Or maybe they had a great deal more
> intelligence than you or I have and knew something that we don't know and
> probably will never know?
>

Like I said, I wipe my ass with stuff that's smarter than you are. Get
a clue. The Republican'ts have milked this for years. Where do you
think those hundreds of billions of dollars went? And have you
noticed that Bush's pals in the oil industry have had record profits
thru this? Take a look at a graph of historic oil prices. Every major
jump in the price of oil has been due to a war in the mideast. The
longer this drags on, the more money they make. Think they haven't
figured that out? Oh wait. You're totally clueless. That's WAY over
your head.
-Paul
 
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The Republican'ts have milked this for years.

Absolutely, but the fact remains that because of stupid asses such as
yourself we find ourselves with a choice between Obama/Clinton and McCain -
or more accurately between stupid/crooked or inadequate.

> Where do you think those hundreds of billions of dollars went?

What billions of dollars? I note that those being led about by the nose
seldom speak or write in complete thoughts. I suppose that's because they
don't have any.

> And have you noticed that Bush's pals in the oil industry have had
> record profits thru this?

Maybe you never learned arithmatic in school. The oil companies make about
7% "profit" after their costs to buy the oil and then to refine it. That
hasn't changed in 40 years. If the cost of oil goes up because the supply is
being purposely limited by, say, laws that refuse oil drilling in coastal
waters, in Anwar and the like, then don't say that this is due to the oil
companies. Or if you refuse oil companies the right to build refineries
anywhere in the continental USA and don't allow sufficient port facilities
to dock and unload supertankers it shouldn't come as a surprise that more
and more middlemen are making more and more profits from a hard to come by
highly desired product.

By the way, the oil companies have to use a significant portion of that
"profit" to find ever increasing sources of oil and refined byproducts due
to those laws. And finding those sources becomes increasingly difficult and
expensive over time.

So when dumb asses such as yourself claim that making a smaller percentage
from your increasing investment is making "record profits" you ought to
understand just what you look like.
 
"diego" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:1127d319-1b9c-4f97-bd5b-b390fe2833e9@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>>
>> Why don't you make one of those charts for the French?
>
> How about one for those who benefit directly from war profits?

Tell me Diego, who do you think benefits directly from war profits that
might control the efforts?
 
On May 1, 5:59 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 3:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:3edd5769-c726-488d-a5d4-743d7a33a135@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The big mistakes were the grand strategic/political decisions. The de-
> > > Baathification of Iraq and the removal of the power structure that
> > > kept the various factions in Iraq in check. The decision to abandon
> > > containment.
>
> > In other words - we should have retained the minority power structure that
> > was holding everything else in check by murder and force of arms.
>
> Jackass -
>
> That is correct.
>
> Why? Because it's the way things are done in the Middle East. For
> instance Kuwait, whose regime we restored to power in the 1991 Gulf
> War, is a monarchy as is our "ally" Saudi Arabia.
>
> A monarchy, by definition, gives its power to a very tiny minority of
> the population. A family. The Baathists, by contrast, made up 20% of
> the population of Iraq. That's one of the very basic cultural
> subtleties of which the neocons and ignoramouses like yourself are
> unaware.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Right. The Baathists were a threat to the Iraqi people. They were no
longer a threat to their neighbors or us, for the simple reason that
we had planes flying over Iraq every day, able to drop a bomb anywhere
at any time. They were also greedy thugs, a totally different animal
from the religious fanatics who attacked us. Now our glorious leader
has taken them out and put the religious fanatics in charge. Nice
going.
-Paul
 
On May 1, 5:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:498a0b19-d3b2-4c0e-9ed3-62ec480537d4@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 1, 5:12 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On May 1, 4:06 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Instead they diverted assets to the totally
> >> > unnecessary ______.
>
> >> Dumbassbag,
>
> >> That's guvmint for ya.
>
> > That's guvmint "Republican't style" for ya.
>
> > The Democrat-controlled govt whipped the Germans and Japanese in less
> > than 4 yrs in WWII.
>
> I hate to point this out but the Liberals who control the Democrat party now
> kicked out "those kind" of Democrats in the 60's. They all moved over to the
> Republican Party and those are the same people you're now criticizing.

What a load of ********.
-Paul
 
On May 1, 11:19 am, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 1, 7:50 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 1, 4:18 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 1 May 2008 00:11:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert Chung
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/1may08.png
>
> > > Well, it looks like the rate of death is tapering off, which is
> > > evidence the surge is working. We should respect the judgement of the
> > > commanders on the ground. The next sixth months will be critical.
>
> > If the potential commanders on the ground had been listened to(if we
> > are going in, go big), this mess would have been over with 5 years ago.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Not if they were going to de-Baathify the country. Sending in more
> troops would not have solved the long term problem of the power vacuum
> created by removing the government.
>
> The only way to get it over w/ fast would've been to depose Saddam,
> leave the power structure in place and appoint a more transparent head
> of state.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Re: Mission accomplished +5
Replies
11
Views
364
Road Cycling
Howard Kveck
H
F
VDB ( Mission accomplished )
Replies
8
Views
452
Road Cycling
Donald Munro
D
Z
Mission Accomplished (0.967+%)
Replies
8
Views
451
Cycling Equipment
Tom Sherman
T
Z
Mission Accomplished (0.967+%)
Replies
8
Views
312
Road Cycling
Tom Sherman
T
V
Mission Accomplished
Replies
15
Views
458
UK and Europe
Pete Biggs
P
R
Mission accomplished
Replies
509
Views
9K
Road Cycling
Bill C
B
N
Mission Accomplished
Replies
8
Views
441
UK and Europe
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
D
E
Mission accomplished
Replies
15
Views
996
Road Cycling
Drs
D
E
Mission accomplished
Replies
18
Views
1K
Road Cycling
DRS
D
articlebot
Velonews: In The News: Mpcc President Legeay Defends Organization’s Mission
Replies
0
Views
331
Cycling News Headlines
articlebot
articlebot
Top Bottom Back