An Amazing Display of Precision

"Jay Honeck" writes:

It's an amazing display of technology and precision bombing. I sure as hell
would not want to be fighting against that kind of firepower.

Nor I. But they don't seem to mind. And I believe that should our
country be invaded in a like manner, we would fight back as hard, in
any way available to us.


"Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, a veteran of many
years [of] service in Special Forces and the super-secret Delta Force who
was brought out of retirement to run the Army, said: 'This war cannot
be won militarily. The gun will not win this one. This is a clash of
ideas, an information war.'"

The Bushies and hard right will never understand this.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" writes:

It's an amazing display of technology and precision bombing. I sure as
hell
would not want to be fighting against that kind of firepower.

Nor I. But they don't seem to mind. And I believe that should our
country be invaded in a like manner, we would fight back as hard, in
any way available to us.


"Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, a veteran of many
years [of] service in Special Forces and the super-secret Delta Force who
was brought out of retirement to run the Army, said: 'This war cannot
be won militarily. The gun will not win this one. This is a clash of
ideas, an information war.'"

The Bushies and hard right will never understand this.

And the left will never understand that no war is won militarily. All that
the United States is trying to do is buy enough time to give democracy a
chance to take hold there.

C J Campbell wrote:


And the left will never understand that no war is won militarily. All that
the United States is trying to do is buy enough time to give democracy a
chance to take hold there.



And just how stable is this democracy going to be, when (1) the
population has essentially no experience in running a democracy, (2)
they have essentially no stake in the formation of that democracy (since
it is, in essence, being imposed upon them, rather than being something
they've earned), and (3) are part of a culture where there is a
significant faction that seriously believes a democracy is blasphemy
because it is not a theocracy based on "the true word".

Rich Lemert

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message
nk.net...
And just how stable is this democracy going to be, when (...

Nobody seems to know the best way to go with this. It is made much more
complicated by the external forces (Iran, Syria, Al Queda, etc) meddling
around.

My feeling is that regardless of how we got to this point, we need more of a
cooperative international effort to get some sort of resolution, no matter
how perfect or imperfect.

But who am I to say, I'm certainly no expert on these matters (not that the
"experts" have done any better, mind you).

Rich Lemert wrote:

And just how stable is this democracy going to be, when (1) the
population has essentially no experience in running a democracy, (2)
they have essentially no stake in the formation of that democracy (since
it is, in essence, being imposed upon them, rather than being something
they've earned), and (3) are part of a culture where there is a
significant faction that seriously believes a democracy is blasphemy
because it is not a theocracy based on "the true word".

You forgot (4) The US really doesn't want a democracy there.

Consider: A real democracy would rapidly devolve into a shiite theocracy.
They're the majority, after all.

What the US wants to see is somewhat more complex, and very poorly
explained: a nation-state where religion is kept as far out of government
as possible, and the rights of the minorities are protected so strictly
that a "tyranny of the majority" cannot effectively occur.

That the current administration needs to push this is just one of too many
ironies.

- Andrew

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message news:FTxWc.2063$Y%

And just how stable is this democracy going to be, when (1) the
population has essentially no experience in running a democracy, (2)
they have essentially no stake in the formation of that democracy (since
it is, in essence, being imposed upon them, rather than being something
they've earned), and (3) are part of a culture where there is a
significant faction that seriously believes a democracy is blasphemy
because it is not a theocracy based on "the true word".

There hasn't been peace in the middle east since before the Old Testament.
They've been fighting each other over God for over six thousand years and,
remember: Islam is a religion of peace. The idea that America is going to
change that is heroic, but fanciful.



-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

There hasn't been peace in the middle east since before the Old Testament.
They've been fighting each other over God for over six thousand years and,
remember: Islam is a religion of peace.


How can that be? Isn't Islam only about 1300 years old?

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

"gatt" wrote in message
...

There hasn't been peace in the middle east since before the Old Testament.
They've been fighting each other over God for over six thousand years and,
remember: Islam is a religion of peace.


How can that be? Isn't Islam only about 1300 years old?

A quick read of the OT will explain. Just the first few chapters are
enough.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

A quick read of the OT will explain. Just the first few chapters are
enough.


No it won't. The Old Testament begins with the creation. The statement in
question was, "There hasn't been peace in the middle east since before the
Old Testament." The statement is immediately recognized as crapola because
there was nothing before creation.

"gatt" wrote in message
There hasn't been peace in the middle east since before the Old Testament.

Yeah but they've never had an ass-whoopin like this ass-whoopin.

--
Jim Fisher