BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and
my cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll
pass on the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing
that your guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

Don't really need a crystal ball do you George?

You having a problem with my English? You don't understand what "I think I'll
pass..." means?

Working hard at being confrontational it seems.

Don't see anything wrong with my reading of what you wrote. Do you understand
what you wrote?

We know what happens when one doesn't stand up to tyranny. We know what
happens when failure in will (usually always for very good reasons), allows
darkness to prevail. I think even you'll agree Saddam and Osama are on the
side of darkness. Removal from Lebanon and Somalia only encouraged the OBL
crowd. Don't think for a minute they can not win in Iraq. The odds are in
their favor.

Spoken like a true simplistic idealogue. Everything's black and
white.....everything's so easy to figure out. Sure it is.....and that's why
they having parades for their conquering heroes in Baghdad every day. Sure it
is!

We can add complexity to the point we no longer can tell anything. Your choice.
You think there are shades of complexity coming from the Taliban? From the
Baathists? From the generic Arab world?

You'd better figure out what is black and white and toss the gray or you'll
be living by someone else's definition of it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm neo-isolationist at heart. I don't think the US
should ever have been in Lebanon or Somalia, despite honest reasons.

I don't think the US should be in Kosovo or Bosnia, despite images of
massacred farmers or urbanites of the wrong ethnic persuasion.

But we were there! And once there, to be run out can only be bad. Now,
like it or not, we're in Iraq, for actually quite fair reasons IMHO.

You were on a roll until you stated our reasons for being there were quite fair.
But, you're entitled to your opinion.

Well your open-mindedness spilleth over.

So what's it going to be?

I don't think you need to be a modern day Nostradamus to see any trends
here do you?

Surely you wouldn't believe what I might have to say, so why don't you enlighten
us with your perceived wisdom?

You've already stated your poor opinion of my wisdom. Saying anything more is a
waste of typing muscles.


SMH

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ...
Stephen Harding wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote:
Surely you won't deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for Democratic
Presidential hopes next year especially if the economy keeps moving towards
improvement (another "dang!" from the Dems although not explicitly stated).

Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for
any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of
the

Then I don't think you're being politically realistic.

While I don't believe our Senators and Representatives *want* more US
casualties to help attain their political goals, the parties most certainly
do make plans based on how certain issues/problems play out. Dems will be
favored if Iraq
is seen as a "quagmire", just as they'll be helped if the economy stays stale.

Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we
would have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead
of going it alone.

In hindsight, when car bombs are exploding along NYC or DC streets on a fairly
regular basis, we'll see the Iraqi effort was cheap compared to having it all
happen at home.

We'll see very clearly the lesson of dropping the ball in Iraq because it
"wasn't worth it" was extremely short sighted.

The terrorists will learn that OBL was right! Americans are paper tigers
without the will to see difficult objectives through to their completion.
Car bombs worked in Lebanon. They worked in Mogadishu. They worked in Iraq.
They'll work anywhere against US interests, and they'll even work in NYC and
LA.

This all won't come to pass the day after we depart Iraq in defeat, but I
believe it will come.

Well, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
cleaning cloth hasn't come back from the cleaners yet, so I think I'll pass on
the predicting-the-future business other than to comment in passing that your
guess is as good as mine, or vice versa.

And your guess would presumably therefore be that if we ticked tail
and skedaddled out of Iraq pronto things would be just peachy?
Otherwise, what are you arguing with here?

Brooks


George Z.


SMH

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good for any
American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including members of the
Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to regret that our nation
allowed itself to get involved in this military adventure for non-existent
reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we may someday conclude that we would
have been better off letting the UN handle the mess their way, instead of going
it alone.

George Z.


Had a student in my American Gov't class last week, an Iraqi Freedom
vet, Marine. He indicated the intent not to vote for Bush' reelection,
although when pressed, he couldn't find any identification with the
opposition other than his disappointment in the "quagmire" of Iraq.

I asked him if he knew where the metaphor originated, and, being a
modern American product of our educational system, he did not. I
explained that David Halberstam had written "Making of a Quagmire"
more than five YEARS after the start of full-blown US/NVN hostilities.
I pointed out that Iraqi Freedom lasted five WEEKS, and the rebuilding
phase has been going on for less than five MONTHS. Hardly "bogged
down" at this point, although the potential exists.

Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder. It was
eighteen months until George Marshall's genius of rebuilding rather
than punishing ala Versailles began to create the stable, economically
powerful Germany and post-war Europe.

Good analogy.


We live in a "USA Today/MTV" sort of world in which resolution must
occur within seconds or we jump cut to the next suggestive video
segment.

Exactly, and well put.


"Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
one. Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
beyond Israel.

"Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?

Somalia? Nope...

Brooks

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:23:17 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 01:16:20 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


Certainly I'll categorically deny that being bogged down in Iraq is good
for any American, candidate or not. Many Americans, lately including
members of the Republican Party as well as Democrats, are starting to
regret that our nation allowed itself to get involved in this military
adventure for non-existent reasons in the first place. In hindsight, we
may someday conclude that we would have been better off letting the UN
handle the mess their way, instead of going it alone.

George Z.


(Snip)

Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder.

I was in Italy until June 1946 and, other than the presence of some refugees,
there was little looting, sniping or disorder visible to the naked eye.
Maybe the birthplace of the Mafia was more law abiding than was defeated
Germany, but I didn't see the things you inferred were endemic. And I do
not remember any reports of ongoing resistance to the end of the war in
Germany as is apparently in progress in Iraq today. There may have been
isolated instances of rifle fire but nothing more.

There's a whole big mountain range between Italy and central Europe.

Yes, they're called the Alps, and they do indeed separate Italy from the rest of
Europe, but no more so than the same mountains separated Austria from the rest
of Europe. Anyway, we were talking about Europe, and not a specific part of it.

The war rolled through Italy a year and a half before Germany
collapsed.....

My unit was staging for an airborne invasion of the Po Valley in the Spring of
'45, which was about the time that Germany collapsed. I wonder why nobody told
us that the war was over so that we might have been able to save the lives of
the guys in our unit who were killed in an accident by a battle damaged B-17
that crash landed at our staging base and ran into a couple of our airplanes.

......and the level of destruction as Berlin was caught between
the two oncoming armies from East and West was considerably different
than Italy.

I guess you've never seen what the Anzio beachhead or the abbey at Montecassino
looked like, but I can tell you that Italian rubble looks just like German or
any other kind of rubble. You're probably right about the fact that the Battle
of Berlin produced a monumental amount of municipal rubble, while the rubble in
Italy was more rural in character and took a lot more time to produce than the
battle for Berlin did.

(Snip)

"Non-existant reasons"? Gotta say at the most superficial that
bringing democracy to an oppressed dictatorial nation is a pretty good
one.

If that's a reason to go to war, then we must have a veritable grab bag of
eligible sites for the next adventure. The world is full of oppressed
dictatorial nations, as is that region, and we are even allied with a good
number of them.

Certainly there are a number of nations that might benefit from
"regime change" but foreign policy is inextricably linked to national
self-interest. While we might not much care what goes on in Liberia or
Myanmar, the stability of the middle-East is clearly within the
interest of America. We pick and choose where we get involved.
Sometimes it is easily and clearly supportable, but more often it will
be dissected in the political process of America's two-party system
and lots of folks will disagree, many for simplistic and even
incorrect reasons.

.....Ditto for demonstrating US support for an Arab people. Ditto
again for stabilizing the region and building a staunch presence
beyond Israel.

That's another way of saying that "this is going to hurt you more than it's
going to hurt me" isn't it? All we have to do is to beat them into
stability, even if it doesn't suit them.

That's an excellent rhetorical gambit, but what the hell does it mean?
It doesn't at all mean what you've implied. Does improving the
governmental process of an authoritarian nation imply some sort of
punishment? Hardly. For that matter, the birth of the USA was
revolutionary and arguably quite painful. And, it only took us eleven
years after the revolution before we beat out the Constitution that
has worked for the last 216 years.

"Letting the UN handle the mess their way..."? Gimme a break. Any
examples of UN successes in handling this sort of mess?

I confess that I would sooner have them firing their RPGs and detonating
their land mines when UN forces go by than when the targets are solely
American. So, if the policy fails, it's a UN policy that fails, and if
there are casualties, they are UN casualties. Let's face it, we're not in
this out of the goodness of our national hearts.....we're in it because,
whether or not it's yet clear to us ordinary Americans, we're going to
profit in some way for our involvement. Some of us suspect that it won't
involve much more than oil or big business in some way. In any case,
anybody who swallows the proposition that we are altruistic in our foreign
affairs has got to be the world's most gullible guppy.

That's great reasoning. You first urge us to abandon the region (or
roll back the clock and never have gone in the first place) so that
the "UN handle the mess their way" clearly implying that a UN solution
would be somehow effective, then when pressed seem to admit that the
UN would bugger it up completely, but at least we wouldn't have
responsibility.

It's somewhat better than your reasoning in that you assumed something (and you
know what happens when you assume) that I never ever said. I think that for us
to pull out of Iraq would be a disaster for our national interests and a total
waste of the human, materiel and fiscal assets we've expended on it so far. In
point of fact, I was merely using my super-perfect 20-20 hindsight in
envisioning how the problem might have developed had we chosen to pursue some
role other than that of Rambo.

Gotta say that while you seem to be ideologically committed, you seem
to be rationality impaired. Your logic doesn't seem to stand up to
scrutiny.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. I don't think too much of the logic of you
knee-jerk idealogues, either. However, I must say in closing how much I admire
your arrogance in sitting in judgment of my ability to rationalize and exercise
logic. Are you sure you don't have a strain of Israeli chutzpah hidden in your
familial background somewhere? (^-^)))

You don't have to answer that, it being just a rhetorical question. Does
answering one's own question stand up to your logical scrutiny? Oh, well.

George Z.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

...foreign policy is inextricably linked to national self-interest.

Absolutely...and often for a small segment of a nation's electorate
(or economy), e.g. current US steel tariffs and resulting WTO
sanctions.

We pick and choose where we get involved.

Yep.

Sometimes it is easily and clearly supportable, but more often it will
be dissected in the political process of America's two-party system
and lots of folks will disagree, many for simplistic and even
incorrect reasons.

And the corollary, "lots of folks will agree, many for simplistic and
even incorrect reasons." C'est vrai?

[responding to GZB's remarks about UN vice US troops being the
predominant force of occupation in Iraq]

That's great reasoning. You first urge us to abandon the region (or
roll back the clock and never have gone in the first place) so that
the "UN handle the mess their way" clearly implying that a UN solution
would be somehow effective, then when pressed seem to admit that the
UN would bugger it up completely, but at least we wouldn't have
responsibility.

Respectfully, I inferred that however messy the process is, it would
be more palatable if the UN community had been the driving force (with
shared risks). It's only natural to prefer that your boys and girls
are not the ones getting killed.

GZB's comments sound perfectly logical.

Gotta say that while you seem to be ideologically committed, you seem
to be rationality impaired. Your logic doesn't seem to stand up to
scrutiny.

Sure it does. The "facts" enumerated by our president as the reason to
invade Iraq (without the aid of major allies in the UN) now appear to
be more ambiguous, with the notable exception that Saddam Hussein is a
ruthless **** that needs to die.

It would *appear* that the CIA's current estimate of the situation in
Iraq is incongruous with Rumsfeld's, Cheney's, or GWB's more positive
assessment.

I too wish the UN had a greater role in the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. **** happens...now I hope we can turn Iraq over to the owners
ASAP.

Juvat

Subject: BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...
From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 11/12/03 12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time

My unit was staging for an airborne invasion of the Po Valley in the Spring
of
'45, which was about the time that Germany collapsed. I wonder why nobody
told

We, the 344th attacked the Po Valley in 1945 hitting a Panzer division below.
It's a good thing you guys didn't drop in. If the Panzers didn't get you, we
would have.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

[...]
Recent editorials have been comparing the Iraqi democratization to the
aftermath of WW II in Europe. Five months after V-E day, the region
was lawless, with looting, refugees, sniping and disorder.

I was in Italy until June 1946 and, other than the presence of some refugees,
there was little looting, sniping or disorder visible to the naked eye. Maybe
the birthplace of the Mafia was more law abiding than was defeated Germany, but
I didn't see the things you inferred were endemic. And I do not remember any
reports of ongoing resistance to the end of the war in Germany as is apparently
in progress in Iraq today. There may have been isolated instances of rifle
fire, but nothing more.
[...]


+ No incentive to attack US forces as heavy-handed response resulted

+ Occasionally, some young nimrod would take a shot at occupying
troops. Noteworthy by its infrequency.

+ Possession of a firearm a serious advance which would land you in a
KZ

+ Levels of lawlessness, banditry, etc, all depended on region.

+ Northern Italy/Yugoslav border, southern Austria, bandits, either
Italian or Balkan, or 'Balkan Blend'. Necessary to be armed when
travelling through some of NE Italy.

+ Most lawlessness directed at obtaining goods. For instance, an
entire train was held up by the Mafia north of Naples somewhere.

+ Berlin there were even gangs of deserters from the Allied armies
doing hold-ups of convoys, trains and shooting it out with MPs

+ Lots of murders among black marketeers. The voiceover at the
beginning of the "The Third Man" shows one of the 'amateurs' floating
in the Danube.

+ Austria, some un-surrendered troops surviving in the mountains.

+ Porous 'borders' with Austria/Czechia/Hungaria meant Soviet and
freelance kidnap gangs roamed at will, as did assassination teams.

+ Nazi smugglers, Zionist terrorist gangs, Jew smugglers all operated
down through the Alps to Italian ports.

+ French occupation troops in the French zone of Austria specialised
in rape

+ No incentive to get the Allies out since if the Allies left the
Soviets would take over. Plus none of the candy-ass
pussyfooting-around over "cultural sensitivity". Anyone in custody was
given a "culturally appropriate" meal consisting of ..... a lot more
calories than most people were getting on the outside and had the
baton applied to them in a "culturally appropriate" manner should
their behaviour merit such.

+If none of this was found to be to taste, you could always cross to
the Soviet zone.

+ Some areas there was no 'border' imposed, as such, you just crossed.
However, on attempting to return, one found there was indeed a
'border'.


The big advantage enjoyed by post-war Allied occupiers was that Uncle
Joe was right next door. This focused everyone's attention on what was
waiting for them if the Allies decided to go home.