General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I wrote:

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

Walt

Walt,

I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues. I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.

General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.

As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands. I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.

Who are the French to tell us how to deal with terrorism? We saved
their bacon at great cost twice during the last century. Who are the
Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
twice on behalf of the French last century. Who is the UN to make
policy decisions by majority rule of 190+ countries like Ghana,
Guinnea Bissau, Cameroon, etc, that are binding on the US.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible. We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.

We have suffered losses in the military. They are all regretable, each
and every one. But, when we raised our hands and swore the oath, we
knew that was a possibility. We will be well served by establishment
of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
Saddam. We are doing what is necessary and the price is steep, but not
as steep as it could have been.

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?


Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)





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

On 27 May 2004 14:12:14 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?


Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)


And a warrior. And a bunch of other things as well.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?


Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)


That used to confuse the Army. My mother's commissions called her an
officer and gentleman until she made major.

She confused the system in general -- WWII Chief Aviation Metalsmith
running the airframe maintenance school at Pensacola, went to school on
the GI bill where they wouldn't let her enroll to teach shop, so she
would up with a master's in social work.

She remained an inactive Navy reservist throughout her education, and
somebody marked it down somewhere. When the Korean War broke out, she
tended not to think they needed a lot of airframe people.

They didn't. They needed, however, mental health professionals. She
wasn't just activated as an individual, but was involuntarily
direct-commissioned as 1LT, USAR, and sent off to a hospital in
Heidelberg.

I've never run across this before or since. Drove the personnel people
absolutely nuts.

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 5/27/04 9:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?


Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)


That used to confuse the Army. My mother's commissions called her an
officer and gentleman until she made major.

She confused the system in general -- WWII Chief Aviation Metalsmith
running the airframe maintenance school at Pensacola, went to school on
the GI bill where they wouldn't let her enroll to teach shop, so she
would up with a master's in social work.

She remained an inactive Navy reservist throughout her education, and
somebody marked it down somewhere. When the Korean War broke out, she
tended not to think they needed a lot of airframe people.

They didn't. They needed, however, mental health professionals. She
wasn't just activated as an individual, but was involuntarily
direct-commissioned as 1LT, USAR, and sent off to a hospital in
Heidelberg.

I've never run across this before or since. Drove the personnel people
absolutely nuts.


She is indeed an officer and a gentleman.


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

Who are the
Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
twice on behalf of the French last century.

Alone?,As far as I could remember US was the part of a global alliance.
In spite of all numerical odds,Germans would still have kicked ass of the
Global Alliance if they had a couple of months more time.

Reality is that Brzezinkis ambitious "Eurasia" plan has been defeated and US is
being pushed out of Eurasia to Cyprus-Turkey-Iran-Afghanistan line without
firing one shot in Anger.
Some nations have plenty of military power ,some others plenty of Brainpower.
Nations with Brainpower can create a formidable military within very short
time,but nations with military power but no Brainpower may need centuries to to
build Brainpower.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible

Nobody attacked US,it was another domestic PSYOP designed to "vaccinate" US
aganist future threats and natural disasters.
(I hope you know why and how medical professionals use vaccines)

We will be well served by establishment
of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
Saddam. We are doing what is

US interests are best served by the installation of Saddam 2.0 version of
Operating system.
(I cant imagine why a democracy or voters in a democracy should or would
approve the colonization of their countries ,examples Philippines,Turkey and
recently India)

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?

Beginning of a healthy and democratic discussion.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I wrote:

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

Walt

Walt,

I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues. I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.

General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.

As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands. I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.

Who are the French to tell us how to deal with terrorism? We saved
their bacon at great cost twice during the last century. Who are the
Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
twice on behalf of the French last century. Who is the UN to make
policy decisions by majority rule of 190+ countries like Ghana,
Guinnea Bissau, Cameroon, etc, that are binding on the US.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible. We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.

We have suffered losses in the military. They are all regretable, each
and every one. But, when we raised our hands and swore the oath, we
knew that was a possibility. We will be well served by establishment
of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
Saddam. We are doing what is necessary and the price is steep, but not
as steep as it could have been.

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces after
WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their experiences with
it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse to dance to our tune.
In addition, their current contributions to our efforts against terrorism in
Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of those of our vaunted coalition
allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better than the condescension with which
you deal with them. But that's just my opinion, and I hope you will allow me
that without tearing me a new asshole for daring to make that point.

George Z.

On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:59:43 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

Walt

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
suffer fools, gladly or not. Until someone offers credentials, I won't
be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.

BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces after
WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their experiences with
it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse to dance to our tune.
In addition, their current contributions to our efforts against terrorism in
Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of those of our vaunted coalition
allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better than the condescension with which
you deal with them. But that's just my opinion, and I hope you will allow me
that without tearing me a new asshole for daring to make that point.

It wasn't condescension, it was merely statement of fact. There is
hardly a nation in the world that hasn't suffered terrorism in one
form or another--much of it isn't muslim extremist. But, it is
difficult to deny the fact that failure to respond to terrorism
doesn't offer much in the way of results. To abjectly declare that we
are somehow responsible for it and that if we simply understand their
pain, join hands and sing Kumbaya together it will all go away is
foolishness of the highest order.

Simply declining to participate would have been a choice available to
the French, however undermining our diplomatic efforts, duplicity in
the UN and a clear economic linkage to the Saddam regime have combined
to make the French involvement in the Iraq question less than
reasonable behavior.

As for any rending, tearing or surgical rearrangement of your
posterior, I will refrain since you have demonstrated your bona fides
on numerous occasions. While we disagree on some issues, the
discussion is on the issue itself and not what you should or should
not be doing in regard to a particular sense of values.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

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

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
suffer fools, gladly or not. Until someone offers credentials, I won't
be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.

I'm in agreement with everything you wrote and I knew that you didn't
lose your temper. Even if you had, fighter pilots are entitled to spew
a little napalm from time to time.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:59:43 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

Walt

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's
entitled to disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for
anyone to be disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil
plane, please.

I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
suffer fools, gladly or not.

I believe you introduced a four letter expletive that starts with the letter "F"
into the exchange. Since I don't recall it being in response to similar
language from Walt, I'm sure you'll forgive me for thinking that you had gotten
a tad ****ed off to the point of sort of losing it. If not, then you sure as
hell fooled me.

.....Until someone offers credentials, I won't
be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.

Since I'm not the one who started the discussion, I'm going to stay out of it
and let Walt deal with that.

BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces
after WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their
experiences with it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse
to dance to our tune. In addition, their current contributions to our
efforts against terrorism in Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of
those of our vaunted coalition allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better
than the condescension with which you deal with them. But that's just my
opinion, and I hope you will allow me that without tearing me a new asshole
for daring to make that point.

It wasn't condescension, it was merely statement of fact.

C'mon, Ed, be honest....it was a deliberate put down and you know it. In the
early part of our engagement in Afghanistan, the French sent a carrier to the
Middle East and committed their entire air complement to our initial efforts
against AQ and the Taliban. I don't know how long they stayed and took part in
the operation, but we didn't tell them to go home and take their dolls and
dishes with them. From what I understand, they still have some of their
equivalent of our special forces committed in Afghanistan as we speak, although
I must admit that I have no idea of how many troops we're talking about.

.....There is hardly a nation in the world that hasn't suffered terrorism in
one
form or another--much of it isn't muslim extremist. But, it is
difficult to deny the fact that failure to respond to terrorism
doesn't offer much in the way of results.

I don't recall that I made that suggestion, so refuting it to me is sort of
wasted effort.

.....To abjectly declare that we are somehow responsible for it and that if we
simply
understand their pain, join hands and sing Kumbaya together it will all go
away is
foolishness of the highest order.

Again, I'm not the one who may have suggested that we are somehow responsible
for the terrorism inflicted on us so I don't understand why you felt obliged to
direct that remark to me. IAC, your use of the "Kumbaya" crack was clearly
racist if unintended, and I thought somewhat beneath you. You surely know
perfectly well that "Kumbaya" is a black South African folk song and introducing
it into the discussion didn't seem warranted to me.

Simply declining to participate would have been a choice available to
the French, however undermining our diplomatic efforts, duplicity in
the UN and a clear economic linkage to the Saddam regime have combined
to make the French involvement in the Iraq question less than
reasonable behavior.

Is there some way for the French to say "no" to our efforts to get them and the
rest of the UN to participate with us other than saying "no"? Maybe, if we
didn't want them to run their chops, we'd have been better advised to stop
pushing them to sign on. French political leaders, too, have a public that they
have to justify their actions to, as we do and, as I recall, their public was
not in favor of them joining in with us at the time.

As for any rending, tearing or surgical rearrangement of your
posterior, I will refrain since you have demonstrated your bona fides
on numerous occasions. While we disagree on some issues, the
discussion is on the issue itself and not what you should or should
not be doing in regard to a particular sense of values.

No argument there, Ed.

George Z.