Way off topic, but it has do to with the French

Just curious... What is your definition of "Iraq succeeding"? I must
admit, I've been watching... and I haven't been seeing anything I
would define as "success" -- Certainly not when the total costs of war
(in $$$ and lives and the global perception of our country) are
factored in...

Gosh, even the mainstream media here in America -- normally anything but
Bush allies -- have been documenting our success in Iraq over the last six
months (which tells you that it really started probably a year earlier,
given the "impartial journalists" in this country) -- and the non-mainstream
media have been taking note for far longer. It's hard to believe anyone
could actually ask this question anymore.

General Petraeus has found the right mix of "carrots and sticks" in working
with the various tribes in Iraq. He has worked hard to forge alliances with
the Iraqis to unite against the Al Queda operatives who were laying waste to
their country. Normal life has returned to most of Iraq, violence is down
to levels that would make large American inner cities envious, and real
progress has been made to eradicate AQ.

Schools are open, roads have been rebuilt, power plants are back on line,
telecommunications systems are working, commerce is growing, and the latest
polls show Iraqi citizens are increasingly happy with the way things are
going. Because of "the Surge", our troops are numerous enough to be out
amongst the citizens again, instead of cowering in safe havens, and are
providing a stable sense of law and order that normal Iraqis (and people all
over the world, for that matter) need and want.

By any measure, this is known as "success" -- and even the most rabid
Bush-bashers have been forced to admit it.

Both Obama and Clinton, with their calls for retreat, are looking more out
of step with reality every day -- but it's hurting Hillary's campaign the
worst. As Iraq fades from public view, and attention is focused on
domestic worries, Obama's message for "change" becomes more compelling.

Now, of course, you can argue that success took too long, and cost too many
lives, and we shouldn't have invaded, and any of a hundred other
postulations -- but the bottom line is this: At this point we need a
stable, peaceful, Iraq, allied with us against AQ and radical Islam. Gen.
Petraeus and the U.S. Army is making that happen, and -- although it's still
a tenuous situation -- it's a beautiful thing to see, after so much
bloodshed and waste.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Feb 27, 10:36*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Just curious... *What is your definition of "Iraq succeeding"? *I must
admit, I've been watching... and I haven't been seeing anything I
would define as "success" -- Certainly not when the total costs of war
(in $$$ and lives and the global perception of our country) are
factored in...

Gosh, even the mainstream media here in America -- normally anything but
Bush allies -- have been documenting our success in Iraq over the last six
months (which tells you that it really started probably a year earlier,
given the "impartial journalists" in this country) -- and the non-mainstream
media have been taking note for far longer. *It's hard to believe anyone
could actually ask this question anymore.

The fact that you find it hard to believe that anyone would question
the value or success of the war speaks volumes about you clouded view
of reality.


General Petraeus has found the right mix of "carrots and sticks" in working
with the various tribes in Iraq. *He has worked hard to forge alliances with
the Iraqis to unite against the Al Queda operatives who were laying waste to
their country. *Normal life has returned to most of Iraq, violence is down
to levels that would make large American inner cities envious, and real
progress has been made to eradicate AQ.

Again, I must question your definition of progress... I read (almost)
daily reports of mass killings in Iraq. Which cities in America are
supposed to be envious?

Schools are open, roads have been rebuilt, power plants are back on line,
telecommunications systems are working, commerce is growing, and the latest
polls show Iraqi citizens are increasingly happy with the way things are
going. *Because of "the Surge", our troops are numerous enough to be out
amongst the citizens again, instead of cowering in safe havens, and are
providing a stable sense of law and order that normal Iraqis (and people all
over the world, for that matter) need and want.

In other words, if things keep "improving", Iraq may someday get back
to levels of pre-invasion days. As far as the "increasingly happy"
Iraqi citizens, I'm not sure if that means last year they were 10%
happy and this year they are 15% happy? Please explain. Do you
really think I need and want the sense of law and order that normal
Iraqis currently possess?

By any measure, this is known as "success" -- and even the most rabid
Bush-bashers have been forced to admit it.

Again, the idea of success must take into account all costs, along
with the benefits. You say by any measure the outcome of this
analysis would be positive. Apparently the billions of $$$ spent,
along with the thousands of lives lost or ruined is a small/non-
existant factor in your analysis of the war. Do you stand by your
assertion that the war is a success "by any measure"? Are you really
that narrow-minded? And who are these "Bush-bashers" that were forced
to admit the success of the war? Can you back up that claim?

Both Obama and Clinton, with their calls for retreat, *are looking more out
of step with reality every day -- but it's hurting Hillary's campaign the
worst. * As Iraq fades from public view, and attention is focused on
domestic worries, Obama's message for "change" becomes more compelling.

I guess we'll have to wait for the next Pres. election to see who the
American public believes is "out of step with reality". Although I
must admit I've heard that description used quite a bit the past
couple of years when referencing are current Pres.

Now, of course, you can argue that success took too long, and cost too many
lives, and we shouldn't have invaded, and any of a hundred other
postulations -- but the bottom line is this: *At this point we need a
stable, peaceful, Iraq, allied with us against AQ and radical Islam. * Gen.
Petraeus and the U.S. Army is making that happen, and -- although it's still
a tenuous situation -- it's a beautiful thing to see, after so much
bloodshed and waste.

Yes, I believe "success" (your word, not mine) took too long, cost too
many lives and $$$, and we shouldn't have invaded. And I (unlike you)
actually take those factors into account when I measure the level of
"success" of this war. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how
successful we have been in creating a stable/peaceful Iraq - one that
is allied with us against QA and radical Islam.
I guess we can just look at your last sentence: You see beauty. I'm
afraid more than a few of us see bloodshed and waste.

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Funny, I haven't heard of the government putting people through industrial
shredders lately. Nor have I heard of sports teams being forced to crawl
across broken bottles because they lost. Haven't heard about
government-sponsored rape rooms, either. If you cannot appreciate the
enormous progress we have made so far, I suggest you become better informed.
Baghdad is safer than the closest major metropolitan area to where I live.

The problem with our country is exemplified by your attitude. We no longer
value freedom, ours or any one else's. Because we don't value it, there is
nothing we are willing to sacrifice. From the days of Kennedy's vow to
"bear any burden, pay any price" we have devolved to ignoring -- or wanting
to ignore -- the rest of the world. And we still represent the best the
world has to offer. Nobody but Canada, England or the Dutch have any
willingness to lift a finger to help us or anyone else.

Most people do not want freedom, all they seek is a benevolent master. Our
country was the all-too-brief exception.


In other words, if things keep "improving", Iraq may someday get back
to levels of pre-invasion days. As far as the "increasingly happy"
Iraqi citizens, I'm not sure if that means last year they were 10%
happy and this year they are 15% happy? Please explain. Do you
really think I need and want the sense of law and order that normal
Iraqis currently possess?

I guess we can just look at your last sentence: You see beauty. I'm
afraid more than a few of us see bloodshed and waste.

I see a goal that is within reach.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:j9qxj.53146$yE1.41114
@attbi_s21:

I guess we can just look at your last sentence: You see beauty. I'm
afraid more than a few of us see bloodshed and waste.

I see a goal that is within reach.

Of course you do!

Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Frfxj.52109$9j6.29622@attbi_s22:



Now, of course, you can argue that success took too long, and cost too
many lives, and we shouldn't have invaded, and any of a hundred other
postulations -- but the bottom line is this: At this point we need a
stable, peaceful, Iraq, allied with us against AQ and radical Islam.
Gen. Petraeus and the U.S. Army is making that happen, and -- although
it's still a tenuous situation -- it's a beautiful thing to see, after
so much bloodshed and waste.


You're an idiot.


Bertie

On Feb 28, 4:36*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:


Now, of course, you can argue that success took too long, and cost too many
lives, and we shouldn't have invaded, and any of a hundred other
postulations -- but the bottom line is this: *At this point we need a
stable, peaceful, Iraq, allied with us against AQ and radical Islam. *

Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it
was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think?

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote:


Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it
was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think?

Cheers


Bull$hit myth.

In late July 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq
massed troops on Kuwait’s borders and summoned American Ambassador April
Glaspie to an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them
controversial. In them, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait,
while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of
negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on
September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to
Saddam Hussein:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen
to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using
any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General
Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these
issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to
see how the issue appears to us?

"My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your
objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak
of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and
painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive
troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But
when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day,
then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign
Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures
taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to
military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to
be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you,
in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation --
regarding your intentions.

"I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that
the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one."

On Feb 29, 3:38 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it
was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think?

Cheers

Bull$hit myth.

In the version published by The New York Times on
September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to
Saddam Hussein:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America".

Yes that's about the core of the problem but this quote is not what
was actually said but rather the carefully spun recollections of a
(failed) diplomat. Despite this seeming indifference to the rising
tension between the corrupt Kuwait and Iraq, in June 1990 General
Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting
thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions. Some say
that the US wanted the war as an excuse to bring the Arab states into
line -I doubt we will ever know the real truth.

My point was that before Iraq was destroyed, Iraq was a modern,
secular state, with most advanced status of women in the region, non-
sectarian Universities and extensive religious freedoms, high rates of
economic growth, and some of the highest standards of living, health
and literacy rates in the Arab world. Free speech was allowed, as long
as it was not directed against the regime.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 29, 3:38 am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:

Sounds a bit like the Iraq that existed before the US told Saddam it
was OK to bring Kuwait back into greater Iraq doncha think?
Cheers
Bull$hit myth.

In the version published by The New York Times on
September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup to
Saddam Hussein:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America".

Yes that's about the core of the problem but this quote is not what
was actually said but rather the carefully spun recollections of a
(failed) diplomat. Despite this seeming indifference to the rising
tension between the corrupt Kuwait and Iraq, in June 1990 General
Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting
thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions. Some say
that the US wanted the war as an excuse to bring the Arab states into
line -I doubt we will ever know the real truth.

Of course Schwartzkopf was war gaming US v Iraq. He was also war gaming
US v Iran, US & Israel v just about anyone with a towel on their head.
What do you expect the commander of CentCom to do when there isn't a war
on?



My point was that before Iraq was destroyed, Iraq was a modern,
secular state, with most advanced status of women in the region, non-
sectarian Universities and extensive religious freedoms, high rates of
economic growth, and some of the highest standards of living, health
and literacy rates in the Arab world. Free speech was allowed, as long
as it was not directed against the regime.


I think that last sentence says a bunch.