General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

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)


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

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

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

"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

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.

"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.

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.

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

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Lrt's review the bidding. All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.

....working for an organization based out of Afghanistan. So we promptly
invaded Afghanistan.

Then, since Iraq wasn't complying with UN sanctions imposed after the
first Gulf War, and since they were a major facilitator of terrorism as
well:

So we invaded Iraq. Makes sense to me. (sheesh)

Well, it does when you don't leave out the intermediate steps.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"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