A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

General Zinni on Sixty Minutes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old May 29th 04, 05:09 PM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions. For you to extend


Your students might want to check out following too:
"The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012".

The award for this study was presented by,well,by a General named Colin Powell.
  #82  
Old May 29th 04, 05:24 PM
Robey Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:


For your further edification as you seem to enjoy throwing the neocon
label around, here is some info on what neo-conservatives are really
all about. (one might note that Kristol started the movement in the
'70s.)


First off...how 'bout dropping this notion that I'm "throwing the
neocon label around," you've finally taken the time to see that it's
NOT simply a liberal pejorative.

Quote:
Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a
geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and
environmental regulation.
Not surprising that the guys in power will always get to define what
"national interest" is at any given moment. Pursuing a foreign policy,
i.e. pre-emptive wars on the other side of the globe while couching it
in terms of self-defense, does NOT pass the common sense test to me
(nor would it pass this test to most inhabitants of this planet).

Quote:
A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large
nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of
yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological
interests in addition to more material concerns.
I take this to be more in the vein of Hobbes' "Leviathan," rather than
Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government." Simply being the
Superpower du jour is not license to discard the moral principals your
nation built its reputation on. I suspect gwb & co are now trying to
get the UN involved because he recognizes that he could lose the
election in Nov, IOW just to save his political ass.

Quote:
Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always
feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack
from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in
our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in
World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today,
when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical
calculations of national interest are necessary.
And yet these same forward thinking standard bearers for truth,
justice and the american way, are livid that democratic nations would
oppose the "american view," of how the world should be. I call that
arrogance, but will amend that to hubris for the sake of polite
conversation.

Quote:
The older, traditional elements in the Republican party have
difficulty coming to terms with this new reality in foreign affairs,
just as they cannot reconcile economic conservatism with social and
cultural conservatism.
Clearly talking about Buchanan...notice the quote said "traditional
element?" It would appear that you have incorrectly identified
yourself as "traditional [conservative]" according to Kristol.

Quote:
But by one of those accidents historians ponder, our current
president and his administration turn out to be quite at home in this
new political environment, although it is clear they did not
anticipate this role any more than their party as a whole did.
In my previous posts there are citations containing links (IOW URLs
within the citations) to writings by neocons during Clinton's
administration where they called for taking SH down "on principal."

For Kristol to suggest that gwb & co did not "anticipate this role" at
all or specifically WRT to Iraq is false. That is simply political
nonsense.

But thanks for the cite.

Robey
  #83  
Old May 29th 04, 10:27 PM
Robey Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
confessed the following:

Here's a link you might find interesting--it's a balanced (rare that!)
discussion of the possibility of an AQ-Iraq connection.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...lndzv.asp?pg=1


Read it...Tenet reports'credible evidence, reliable information,
etc...IOW a "slam dunk." But nobody can produce this evidence.

Hayes contradicts Clarke. LtCol Kwiatkowski reported that the
political neocon appointees that setup shop in the Pentagon
cherry-picked the bits that fit their pre-determined outcome.

I suppose Pakastani Intelligence officers that happen to be muslim and
provided assistance to AQ and Taliban in Afghanistan are proof of Pres
Musharraf's support of AQ? The logic follows the same as Mr Hayes
article. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia allows wahhabi islam (OBL's
particular brand) to be openly taught so that makes them
co-conspirators? Hey we've got evidence to support attacking current
allies.

We bring democracy to Iraq to fight terrorism while closely allied
with the monarchy of SA...common sense...not to me. Goes back to the
nation building theme.

Regarding my contention that we were at peace up until 9/11...

Your first sentence says "YES" and your last sentence says "no". I
remember the explosion quite well.


Who the enemy was that bombed USAFE HQ? Who did Reagan declare war on?
Did Waco, Ruby Ridge, or McVeigh's bombing in OKC mean we were in a
civil war? Not at all.

If you chose to use Beirut, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole as evidence of
war, does it seem logical that we were at war (or should be) with the
entire Middle East except for Israel and maybe Jordan?

Before you answer you should recall that gwb said in his 2003 SOTU,
"As we fight this war, we will remember where it began -- here, in our
own country." I'm guessing the gwb thought we were at peace.

I won't disagree on the "bad decisions" at Abu Ghraib. Lots of
failures of leadership at all levels up to brigade commander.


Ummm, SecDef Rumsfeld confessed that he was responsible. And this is
one time I believe him. Dep SecDef Wolfowitz' visit to Abu Ghraib in
Oct 2003 (photographed with the Bridgade CO) was probably a
coincidence, he wouldn't actually learn anything about the operation
(strictly need to know I guess). Plausible deniability.

But the continued assertion that there was no plan for transition is
tougher to accept. Of course there was a plan--an essential element of
the Powell Doctrine is "exit strategy". The problem is that events
don't always flow exactly the way the plan predicts. If that is a
failure of leadership, then every plan ever devised exhibits the same
problem.


The bulk of our armed forces are not equipped for rebuilding or
caretaker operations, absent civil affairs, MP, civil engineering. I
dont' think gwb & co looked much beyond being greeted as liberators.

I'm not disputing the great things our folks are doing to make life
better for Iraqis. It just appears to be the sincere efforts of good
guys rather than "the plan."

I suspect you would need to talk to my students regarding that
assertion. It is a leap to unsupported conclusions.


No it was simply an observation, you gave no indication that you read
any cite I provided (I've read all of yours...both?); but you did
kinda give me the wave of the hand and the virtual "pfffttt." This
post has been the most honest IMO exchange on this subject. I
appreciate the effort.

For you to extend my debate with you on this topic to some
sort of student intimidation or doctrinaire requirements
for successful grades is ridiculous.


Not really, my political science advisor was a WWII infantry officer
(Normandy to the Rhine) he came to dislike the military. He often
initially dismissed opposing views without considering the message.

Snip an excellent approach to thinking, but then there's this...

Probably not the way it is taught in the Ivy League, but it's what
happens where I work.


Oh boy...
  #84  
Old May 30th 04, 03:28 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just for Ed:

"The Bush Administration has not made it easy on its supporters. David Brooks
now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq. Tucker
Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to being
"a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican publicist
William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon
fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on the
Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the inescapable
fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently deliberate
contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard for the
American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the
boastfulness of the civilian leadership."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...607&s=alterman

Walt
  #85  
Old May 30th 04, 03:31 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Just for Ed:

"The Bush Administration has not made it easy on its supporters. David

Brooks
now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq.

Tucker
Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to

being
"a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican

publicist
William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon
fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on

the
Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the

inescapable
fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently

deliberate
contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard

for the
American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the
boastfulness of the civilian leadership."


Casualties have been light.


  #86  
Old May 30th 04, 04:27 AM
Mike Dargan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Just for Ed:

"The Bush Administration has not made it easy on its supporters. David


Brooks

now admits that he was gripped with a "childish fantasy" about Iraq.


Tucker

Carlson is "ashamed" and "enraged" at himself. Tom Friedman, admitting to


being

"a little slow," is finally off the reservation. Die-hard Republican


publicist

William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon
fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on


the

Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the


inescapable

fact that the war has been run incompetently, with an apparently


deliberate

contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard


for the

American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the
boastfulness of the civilian leadership."



Casualties have been light.

More than 5,000 moms would disagree.

Cheers

--mike
  #87  
Old May 30th 04, 04:38 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...

More than 5,000 moms would disagree.


Then more than 5,000 moms would be wrong.


  #88  
Old May 30th 04, 05:20 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...

More than 5,000 moms would disagree.


5,000 out of millions is a very small percentage.


  #89  
Old May 30th 04, 05:37 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...

More than 5,000 moms would disagree.


Which 5,000 moms do you speak for?


  #90  
Old May 30th 04, 05:40 AM
Mike Dargan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:Hwcuc.16394$js4.14628@attbi_s51...


More than 5,000 moms would disagree.



Which 5,000 moms do you speak for?



Are you getting poli-sci credit for these postings?

Cheers

--mike
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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 11th 04 12:06 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.