![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes From: "Vaughn" Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net... "Vaughn" wrote in message ... This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists? Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq. I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism activity in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab countries. Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown open the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work. I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11 and it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to have something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission accomplished"), but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect. Vaughn Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Weren't a couple either Egyptians or Palestinians? So we invaded Iraq. Don't forget all the old ladies who had to be fondled in airports. Makes sense to me. (sheesh) Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have conquered Mexico City by June of '42. Cheers --mike Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Mike Dargan Date: 5/31/04 7:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51 ArtKramr wrote: Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes From: "Vaughn" Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net... "Vaughn" wrote in message ... This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists? Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq. I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism activity in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab countries. Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown open the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work. I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11 and it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to have something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission accomplished"), but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect. Vaughn Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Weren't a couple either Egyptians or Palestinians? So we invaded Iraq. Don't forget all the old ladies who had to be fondled in airports. Makes sense to me. (sheesh) Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have conquered Mexico City by June of '42. Cheers --mike And lost the Hispanic vote? Never! Arthur Kramer 344th BG 494th BS England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51... snip Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have conquered Mexico City by June of '42. And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942. Since we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people who actually formulate it. Cheers --mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote: "Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51... snip Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have conquered Mexico City by June of '42. And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942. Since we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people who actually formulate it. Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French vessels might be taken by the Axis. By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright" wrote: "Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51... snip Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have conquered Mexico City by June of '42. And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942. Since we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people who actually formulate it. Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French vessels might be taken by the Axis. Hmmm. Sounds like us, Iraq and WMD. By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary. Sounds like Iraq again. Also you left out the part about supporting the grand strategy of the United States. It was the strategy to defeat Germany first. It was politically important to get US forces into combat against the Germans in 1942 lest those forces get siphoned off to the Pacific. The British made it abundantly clear that a return to Europe was flat impossible in 1942, something the Americans had a hard time letting go of. TORCH was the compromise. People should be some what cautious about judging our current strategy because unless they are on the National Security Council, they are making an awful lot of assumptions. One thing is for sure. We are deluged in information and most of it is crap. A good portion of what we see reported is just plain wrong and another good portion is just plain lies. But then misinformation is also a weapon of war. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article yGHvc.37385$3x.8154@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote: "Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message ... In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright" wrote: Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French vessels might be taken by the Axis. Hmmm. Sounds like us, Iraq and WMD. Similar enough situations to be worth using. There also have been many cases, by many nations, of hot pursuit of attackers into other countries, once the country to which they escaped has been warned that they need to take action. By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary. Sounds like Iraq again. I'm not sure I follow your point, unless you are referring to Iraq as a large-scale supporter of terrorism. The al-Qaeda relation to the Taliban was much more apparent. Also you left out the part about supporting the grand strategy of the United States. No, I didn't leave it out -- it wasn't relevant to the discussion, which was dealing at the operational level of the French fleet and Vichy support for Germany. I wasn't aware the discussion was extending to the strategic level. It was the strategy to defeat Germany first. It was politically important to get US forces into combat against the Germans in 1942 lest those forces get siphoned off to the Pacific. Politically important to whom? The British made it abundantly clear that a return to Europe The US SLEDGEHAMMER proposal, which the British (quite correctly) rejected, was for a major landing on the scale of Normandy. The British were not opposed to raids and peripheral actions. was flat impossible in 1942, something the Americans had a hard time letting go of. TORCH was the compromise. People should be some what cautious about judging our current strategy because unless they are on the National Security Council, they are making an awful lot of assumptions. In like manner, US intelligence had to be somewhat cautious in judging the strategy of the fUSSR Defense Council, or whatever strategy was inside Hitler's head. That still doesn't mean that it isn't necessary to make judgements, in order to select one's own actions. A National Intelligence Estimate is an estimate, not revelation. One thing is for sure. We are deluged in information and most of it is crap. A good portion of what we see reported is just plain wrong and another good portion is just plain lies. But then misinformation is also a weapon of war. Of course. See _Bodyguard of Lies_ (Anthony Cave-Brown) for the primarily British cover and deception history of WWII. Unfortunately, the US Field Manual on Cover & Deception is no longer available for public release. The fUSSR put disinformation at a very high level of the General Staff. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
William Wright wrote:
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51... snip Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have conquered Mexico City by June of '42. And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH Vichy France. Cheers --mike North Africa in November 1942. Since we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that was a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people who actually formulate it. Cheers --mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "ArtKramr" wrote in message ... Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes From: "Vaughn" Date: 5/31/04 6:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Vaughn" wrote in message ... This from the guy who thinks we went to Iraq to fight terrorists? Informed people understand we're fighting terrorists in Iraq. I will concede that we may actually be fighting a few terrorists in Iraq now, but they are likely foreign "true believers" who have gravitated to Iraq because our guys are there (and have perhaps by now managed some local recruiting). There was very little documented international terrorism activity in Iraq before we invaded, certainly less than in certain other Arab countries. Don't forget; Iraq was a comparatively secular society. We have now thrown open the gates for the religious crazies to come in to Iraq and do their work. I still haven't figured out what Iraq is all about, but it wasn't 9-11 and it has little or nothing to do with terrorism. Perhaps it was supposed to have something to do with assuring Bush's second term (thus "mission accomplished"), but today it seems more likely to have the opposite effect. Vaughn Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. So we invaded Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh) Then why were you one of the louder "Yeah, let's do it!" and "Screw the French for not supporting us" types a year ago? Brooks Arthur Kramer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |