BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...

David Brower wrote:

Stephen Harding writes:

"George Z. Bush" 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).

Pot, kettle; it didn't hurt Nixon that Johnson was stuck in Vietnam
either. Depressing as this is, it is business as usual.

Probably true.

But I don't think there was quite the polarization between Left and Right
that exists today. That pushes the best interests of the nation even
farther into the background in favor of personal or party gain.

That's my take on it any ways.


SMH

"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.


SMH

David Brower wrote:
"George Z. Bush" writes:

BTW, when Kissinger went to Paris to negotiate the end of the war, it
was hardly going to be a victory. In fact, what actually happened
was that we pulled out and left the South Vietnamese to continue the
fight on their own. I think they only lasted a couple of months
after our last troops left.

While a Dem personally, I'll point out a flaw in Z's description.
Ford was POTUS, and concluded he could not fly air support for RVN in
'75 because the Democratically controlled congress would not provide
funding for further involvement. Lack of US material and air support
were among the reasons for the RVN's collapse, but their own handling
and behaviour at Ban Me Thuot didn't help.

My opinion is that the country was not prepared to continue, so it
mattered little which party controlled Congress. I admit that is
conjecture.

The point is, Nixon slipped the US out by promising support he couldn't
really be sure would be provided if needed. It was needed, and it
wasn't provided. Thieu rightly believed at the time that he'd been
sold out for empty promises, but there was nothing he could do about it.

(Comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq left as exercises.)

Although the flaw you found was too insignificant for me to have to acknowledge
or take exception to, I don't see any notable difference in our views on the
factors leading to the collapse of the South Vietnamese gpvernment and its
surrender to North Vietnam. As to your reference to Afghanistand and Iraq, as a
nation we seem to have sadly made a hallmark of empty promises.

Whatever happened to "our word is our bond"?

George Z.



-dB

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.

George Z.


SMH

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.

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.

"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?

Subject: BUSH HIDES THE BODY BAGS...
From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 11/12/03 4:35 AM Pacific

ell, aren't you the latter day Nostradamus! My crystal ball is cloudy and my
cleaning cloth hasn't com

My eyes are dim I cannot see,
I have not got my E6-B with me,
Over the Valley of the Ruhr.

WW II AAC ditty with parts left out.



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

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.

......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.

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.

"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.

.....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.

"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.

George Z.

"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?

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.

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.

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?


SMH

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.
The war rolled through Italy a year and a half before Germany
collapsed and the level of destruction as Berlin was caught between
the two oncoming armies from East and West was considerably different
than Italy.

......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.

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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?


George Z.