Mission accomplished



In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Tim Lines <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > The secret bonmbing campaign was another factor in that, Tim. It started
> > a huge
> > refugee crisis that Pol Pot was able to exploit.

>
> Perhaps you can explain to us about this "secret bombing"? I mean, the
> secret bombing campaign was in Laos and not Cambodia. Pol Pot actually came
> more or less into power BEFORE the bombing in Laos. Laosians didn't seek
> refuge into Cambodia but away from the Vietnamese border. What's more Pol
> Pot and his men would tie Laosians to metal beds and torture them and then
> finally cut their throats. Pol Pot and his men BRAGGED on national radio
> that of the 8 million people inhabiting Cambodia that they intended only 2
> million to live. As it was he managed to murder fully 25% of his people to
> try and make an agrarian communist heaven.


Well, Mister Know-It-All Tom strikes again. Cambodia, Laos, what's the difference?

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl02.html

__________________________________
On March 18, 1969, American B-52s began carpet-bombing eastern Cambodia.
"Operation Breakfast" was the first course in a four-year bombing campaign that drew
Cambodia headlong into the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration kept the bombings
secret from Congress for several months, insisting they were directed against
legitimate Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge targets. However, the raids exacted an
enormous cost from the Cambodian people: the US dropped 540,000 tons of bombs ,
killing anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 civilians.
__________________________________

The bombings were exploited by Pol Pot as he spread rumors that various towns
were to be bombed next, and that the inhabitants should evacuate. He further
exploited the bombing by hyping nationalistic pride to get the men to join *his*
army to "defend the country from US aggression. By the timew the bombing stopped,
Pol Pot had an army of about 700, 000.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Tom, the person I quoted (Professor Juan Cole) knows the history of the
> > area and
> > the language. Do you know either? No.

>
> Just so we're clear on it - in 1963 I spent some time with an Iranian
> prince. I was offered a job at a company working in Iran and looked into all
> its history and studied Farsi a bit before deciding not to take that job.
> Later I worked with several companies that were doing jobs for the Shah. If
> I hadn't quit one of them and went to another job I would have been in Iran
> when the Shah was overthrown.


Uh, Tom, weren't you in the US military (according to you) during that time
frame? Okinawa comes to mind... I swear, you come up with this stuff and it just
cracks me up. Youu always seem to have worked in whatever field happens to be in
discussion at the moment. You've done blood science when blood science is in
discussion, you've designed windtunnels when the aerodynamics of helmets are in
discussion, you worked on the first word processor when typestyles and documents
were under discussion. Gosh, what a coincidence it all is, Tom.

You studied Farsi - heh. Sorry, Tom, but Professor Cole can Farsi you around the
block a dozen ways to Sunday. I guarantee it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> >
> > According to several things I've read, many of the sites are in large
> > population
> > centers, and are very deep underground - that's where the use of the
> > nuclear "bunker
> > buster" bombs are to be used, should this come to pass. This talk of
> > "tactical
> > nuclear weapons" is a joke. They will spread destruction for miles and kill
> > thousands, in addition to the fallout.


> Unfortunately Howard that's how to beat the west. Put your
> anti-aircraft stuff in school yards, use religious sites as armories
> and fighting positions, house your command and control in the middle of
> a city block, bury your hardened sites in your most populous areas.
> By making "civilian" casualties such a huge thing, ripping the west in
> the press, and prosecuting our soldiers for killing "Civilians"
> etc...this has made the best possible tactical and strategic place to
> site your stuff is where the most damage will occur to civilians. They
> are almost never blamed for siting the stuff there, but we rip
> ourselves to shreds for attacking it.


I agree with you that it's a completely **** way to do things, but it is
effective, right? And it's been going on since the dawn of time. Again, I'm not
saying that I approve of it.

> There's a major discussion in Canada right now about whether their
> troops are being injured and killed because they are afraid to defend
> themselves due to all the investigations and prosecutions surrounding
> returning fire when the enemy is using "civilians" for shelter.
> We have really encouraged everyone to make sure they put the maximum
> number of civilians in harms way, even if they have to threaten to kill
> them to keep them their. If they shoot them down as they try to flee an
> attack the press almost always assumes that we shot them down. Largely
> because most of the press is sitting in the Green Zone on their asses
> while they pay "stringers" to bring them the story, and they don't give
> a **** what the affiliation of those stringers is, or if they are lying
> as long as it's a "good" plausible story, and they don't have to risk
> their sorry asses.
> There are no more Ernie Pyles and Sean Flynns.


Well, you have to admit that it's way too dangerous for journalists from the west
to be out and about in Iraq right now. It's not like the majority of them are just
hanging out there for the heck of it, I'm sure they'd like to do their job but the
mortality rate has been pretty high for journalists recently when they do go out and
try to cover things.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Dude,
> >>>
> >>> Don't fart around engaging in Socratic dialogue.
> >>> Jack has stated:
> >>>
> >>>>> Bush's policies in the Middle East have been so successful that
> >>>>> that alone will insure his place as one of the US's great
> >>>>> Presidents.
> >>
> >> Three presidents on "what was the best moment of your presidency?"
> >> http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2006/05/great-moments-in-history.html

> >
> > What are we to infer from this?

>
> That Carter didn't consider the incident with the rabbit in his pond as
> highly as Bush considers the incident with the bass in his pond?


That we are to contrast the President with former
Presidents, who can be elder statesmen? That the President
is constrained by the responsibilities of office; that he
has not had time to write his memoirs, much less comment
upon them; that he finds a diplomatic and friendly way to
decline the question while still giving the questioner
something to write?

--
Michael Press
 
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> William Asher wrote:
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>> > The 32 included Tonga, Moldova, and Fiji.

>>
>> You made up the nation of Tonga didn't you?

>
> Tonga is where Tonga Trucks are grown. Every five year old
> boy knows that. Sheesh.
>


I forget things because nobody really gives tongas for the memories.

--
Bill Asher
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> William Asher wrote:
>> But given Moldova's somewhat spotty record in this regard
>> (http://tiny.pl/g1g2), they might really fall into the category of
>> the coalition of the coerced, drugged, or otherwise duped in being
>> willing.

>
> The Moldovans sent 24 troops. I think there were about 36 total
> kidneys among them.


They consider themselves to be livers, not fighters.

--
Bill Asher
 
Michael Press wrote:

>>>> Three presidents on "what was the best moment of your presidency?"
>>>> http://upyernoz.blogspot.com/2006/05/great-moments-in-history.html
>>>
>>> What are we to infer from this?

>>
>> That Carter didn't consider the incident with the rabbit in his pond as
>> highly as Bush considers the incident with the bass in his pond?

>
> That we are to contrast the President with former
> Presidents, who can be elder statesmen? That the President
> is constrained by the responsibilities of office; that he
> has not had time to write his memoirs, much less comment
> upon them; that he finds a diplomatic and friendly way to
> decline the question while still giving the questioner
> something to write?


Hmmm. What are we to infer from your response?
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 22:28:41 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:08:25 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In 2003, Iran approached the US through diplomatic back channels, and
>>>> was rudely rebuffed.
>>> Please explain what you're talking about.

>> Thanks for prompting me to go looking for this. I found out that Iran
>> has been even more friendly than I previously knew.
>>
>> http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fleverett/20060124.htm

>
>
> Interesting reading.
>
> The Brookings Institution has been around a long time as a
> "non-partisan" think tank. In the past that was true, but over the
> past decade, they have become a left wing think tank. So you have to
> take the stuff coming out of there with a grain of salt. I'm sure you
> would have the same feelings if used an article from the National
> Review (which I wouldn't) as support for something I wrote.


Right/left is relative. I'm a flaming liberal living Utah, but I were in
Oregon, I'd be a centrist. Likewise, Brookings didn't need to change a
bit to be cast as "leftist." The nation's changed, at least the government.

I routinely pop into Free Republic to get the other side of the story,
and have found Sean Hannity to be fun to listen to lately.

> In any case, even if the facts in the article are true, I doubt
> seriously that it is the whole truth.


Facts is facts.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 22:40:59 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> That's true, but none of it will be effective. Nevertheless, the EU3
>>> and US have to go the diplomacy route. When they've tried and failed
>>> then the military options come into play.

>> What makes you think none of it will be effective? Iran has already had
>> one revolution in the modern era. The population there is just as
>> susceptible to our perverted cultural influence, they're reasonably
>> sophisticated, well educated and peace-loving. Their current prez
>> apparently has low polls. They even have apparently fair elections
>> there. There's the rest of the world to apply pressure and sanctions.
>> Failing all that, there's always the old standby of MAD.

>
>
> Hopefully, diplomatic actions will win out, but I doubt that the US
> position of not allowing Iran to develop nukes will be changed. So if
> Iran fails to stop its nuke program due to diplomatic pressure, then
> they will face military action. I don't see much that will change
> that.


Doesn't it make sense to use all the time we have to avoid war? Is war
truly a last resort? Can't you identify at least one hundred measures we
can and should take before going to guns?

If it happens, it won't be an easy one, btw. Iran is not Iraq.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 23:00:03 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>> There were perhaps a half-dozen nations committing forces of ANY size to
>>>> OIF. The only significant contributions came from the US and Britain.
>>>> Like I said, if you want to be proud that Tonga signed a paper
>>>> supporting the invasion, go ahead.
>>>
>>> Same was true in Desert Storm.

>> Now you're just acting ignorant. Ask the French about their shot-down
>> Jaguars, the Saudis about the liberation of their town (al Kafji IIRC),
>> the Kuwaitis, Syrians & Egyptians about the liberation of Kuwait City.
>> Over 40 nations contributed effective military power to Gulf War I.

>
> Coalition Warfare in Iraq: Then and Now
>
> Rick Russell
>

....
> Despite all the confidence in the common mind about the strengths of
> coalition warfare of the first Iraq war and the weaknesses of
> coalition warfare in the second Iraq war, there are more similarities
> than differences.


The guy's not wrong. But as he pooh-poohs the military contributions in
1991, he also skims over the impact of a nation putting their soldiers
in harm's way, fighting (or policing, or doing logistics) alongside
Americans and Brits. That shows commitment and approval far more than a
speech, private handshake or covert cooperation.

I'm under no illusions that we could count on the Europeans or Arabs for
much combat power. But we could free up whole divisions of American
force if we didn't have to patrol the whole of Iraq. Parking some
Belgians along the border would cut off the supply of foreign fighters,
making our job easier.

And consider the legitimacy that a single nod from Syria, Egypt, Lebanon
or Jordan would lend to the mission. A token platoon from any of those
nations would change the perception of this occupation almost 100%.

Instead, Turkey voted to deny us the northern front. I thought that if
anything would, that would give us pause, but such was the determination
to fight this war in early 2003 that nothing was going to stop Bush. It
would have been insanely entertaining if Saddam had accepted the final
ultimatum.

> Richard L. Russell is a Research Associate at the Institute for the
> Study of Diplomacy and teaches in the Security Studies Program at
> Georgetown University.
>
> http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue27/Vol3Issue27Russell.html



--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 23:00:03 -0600, Raptor <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> In reality, the only major US ally that did not support the war is
>>> France.

>> Canada, Germany, Belgium, Mexico, Pakistan, Turkey. Can you think of any
>> other crisis in which Canada wasn't with us? And don't forget that most
>> of those nations who disagree over Iraq DO support our efforts in
>> Afghanistan.

>
> No offense to the US's NA neighbors to the north and south, but
> neither Canada or Mexico could be considered as major in the
> international arena.


It points out either the insanity this war, or the lack of leadership on
the part of the president. Leaders usually have followers, and if those
who always followed our lead suddenly don't, it's a bad sign.

> The Germans actually did their part to support the US while making a
> public stand to say the opposite. NATO bases in Germany were
> available to help in the war effort. Germany considerable increased
> its troop strength in Afghanistan, which freed up US forces for Iraq.
> And, as is now coming out, German covert operators in Iraq provided
> support for the war.


I'd like to see a cite for that.

> Turkey was reluctant at first, but after the war began, they offered
> to assign troops in Iraq. The offer was turned down due to opposition
> from the Iraqis, especially the Kurds.


Bush forced the issue.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
[email protected] wrote:
This is a recipe for continuing unrest at best and de facto
> civil war. Farting around and hoping the situation gradually improves
> isn't going to bring the Sunnis on board.


What should we do?

If I were president, I'd go shopping for another army. It's probably too
late now, but as late as last year it could have worked and would have
helped hugely.

Our "plan" now seems to be to keep to keep the deployment up, let the
Iraqis fight things out, then go in and clean up the aftermath. It might
work unless Congress pulls the funding. That's a distinct possibility.

It's going to get worse, and probably won't get better. All that's
really left now is for the Bushies to shift the blame.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 8 May 2006 13:05:48 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 1) the interests that possess power in the country want to fight the
>> other sects. The coming civil war is inevitable

>
> No it isn't. However, if the Sunni's don't join in the political
> process, they could become an oppressed minority. It's up to them.


With dozens of militias now fighting for their slice of the pie, ethnic
cleansing balkanizing large swaths of the country, the civilians
fatalistically trying to stay off the streets as much as possible, and
the US and British sticking mainly to their bases, how is a civil war
going to be avoided?

I guess you can always play word games. "It's not a war, it's a scrum."

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
 
In article <[email protected]>, Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:

> I routinely pop into Free Republic to get the other side of the story,


Your constitution is made of some pretty stern stuff, Lynn.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
> Farting around and hoping the situation gradually improves
> isn't going to bring the Sunnis on board.


I take it back. The USDA - that's the Department of Agriculture -
has convinced me that Iraq is doing fine.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/07/AR2006050700898.html>
-----
Career appointees at the Department of Agriculture were stunned
last week to receive e-mailed instructions that include Bush
administration "talking points" -- saying things such as "President
Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq" -- in every speech they
give for the department.

"The President has requested that all members of his cabinet
and sub-cabinet incorporate message points on the Global War
on Terror into speeches, including specific examples of what
each agency is doing to aid the reconstruction of Iraq," the May 2
e-mail from USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn began. ...

Another attachment "contains specific examples of GWOT
messages within agriculture speeches. Please use these
message points as often as possible and send Harry Phillips,
USDA's director of speechwriting, a weekly email summarizing
the event, date and location of each speech incorporating the
attached language. Your responses will be included in a weekly
account sent to the White House." ...

....The e-mail shows how to weave in a comment that times are
tough for Iraqi farmers. "But revitalization is underway. President
Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq structured on three
tracks -- political, economic and security."

Be crop-specific. "The Iraqis have also discussed specific
products, like tomatoes, which they are anxious to export into
the world community," the e-mail notes. ...
-----

You gotta read the whole column to believe it. I think even
if you are a supporter of the Iraq war, the spectacle of some
hack instructing the USDA to deliver speeches about it
is a little inappropriately Pravda-esque. Remember, if
you're not with us, the boll weevils win!
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 8 May 2006 13:05:48 -0700, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >1) the interests that possess power in the country want to fight the
> >other sects. The coming civil war is inevitable

>
> No it isn't.



<snip>


Dumbass -


Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

I am.

$500. Whenever the United States military pulls out, there will be a
civil war.

Payable by Paypal.



K. Gringioni.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> Again, it was Saddam himself that was the problem. Even if he didn't
>>> have WMDs, he was a long range threat and needed to be removed.


Donald Munro wrote:
>>So how come the US supported him and propped up his regime for such a long
>>time ?


Jack Hollis wrote:
> It was the right thing to do at the time.


So the right thing to do was to support a regime that used mustard and
poison gas against civilians in a war that resulted in around 1 million
casualties ?
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> The Iraqi security forces are mainly Shia and Kurds. It's hard to
> imagine the Sunni being able to wage any large scale military
> operations. Full scale civil war is unlikely.


The former Iraqi army however was mostly Sunni so there's no shortage of
trained former soldiers.
 
Jack Hollis wrote:
> Sorry Bill, but the entire ground war lasted 100 hours. I can't
> imagine that the French has any desperate hours holding up the flank.
> In any case, the French did have 2 killed in action as opposed to 24
> Brits and 148 US dead. The Arab members of the coalition lost 39
> dead. The war could have gotten along just as well without the
> French.


Actually the US military killed just about as many of their allies in
friendly fire incidents as the Iraqi's did. With allies like that who
needs enemies ?
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> Uh, Tom, weren't you in the US military (according to you) during that time
> frame? Okinawa comes to mind... I swear, you come up with this stuff and it just
> cracks me up. Youu always seem to have worked in whatever field happens to be in
> discussion at the moment.


You mean he invented EPO and the Internet ? Gotta keep ahead of that Gore
liberal...