More on Bush in the Air Guard

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate
the
poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers
of
the left.



EIR: I was at an event, where both Gen. [Anthony] Zinni [USMC-ret.] and
Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke, and this
was about eight months before the outbreak of fighting, in March 2003,
and they both basically thought that the real troubles would begin after
the "hot phase" of combat, when American forces would be there as an
occupying force. And they rejected the neo-con and Cheney thesis, that
this would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators."


So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't agree
with aspects of the Iraq strategy and you think this is particularly
meaningful? I doubt anyone thought the al Qaida operatives in Iraq would
greet anyone as liberators. Clearly most Iraqis are glad to have a chance
at a real government. Relative to many past military actions this was a
cakewalk, and if you don't know that you need to start reading your history.
Saddam needed to go, and thanks in large part to President Bush's leadership
he is gone.


Bush is a miserable failure.


You don't seem to be in any postition to be calling names given your angry
crazed repetitive ramblings.



Walt




Typical desperate left wing stuff - criticism without offering alternatives
other than to elect Kerry, a person with the most liberal (read out of
touch) voting record in the Senate, a person who also hasn't presented any
reasonable alternatives to any of these issues, a person who has repeatedly
demonstrated tendancy to flip flop on any given subject, who thinks the
solution for improving the economy is raising taxes., etc. How very sad
that this is all you can come up with.

Jarg

What part of rec.aviation.military do you not understand?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't agree
with aspects of the Iraq strategy

Not "guys".

Two former commanders of Central Command.

Certainly not on the 'left' despite your propagandist rant.

Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.

But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA

I served in the military, and I was in both the Infantry, and a crewmember in
the USAF. I retired in 1993 after 25 years. I spent 8 years in the Iran-Iraq
war, and witnessed the attack on the U.S.S. Stark. I spent my last years on
active duty in the air war that ejected Iraq from Kuwait, and two years of
wasting our treasury on containing Iraq. For 24 years we fought that country,
and millions of Iraqis, and Iranians died.

It is worth it. War isn't pretty, and we wish everyone had perfect tactical vision,
but Iraq had no chance of continuing as a country, and I'm glad we invaded.
Iraq is in the hands of real Iraqis now, and we should do everything in our power
to support them in ridding the last elements of the dictators regime.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.

But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA


Informed, intelligent people understand the reasons for the war on terror.
It is unlikely you ever served in the military.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
So you find a couple of guys (former this and former that) who don't
agree
with aspects of the Iraq strategy

Not "guys".



Oh sorry, are they female?


Two former commanders of Central Command.



And your point is? They were trained to carry out military strategy based
on United State government policy. They had no particular compelling
insight into Iraq as far as I can see, and were not involved in the decision
making process. Zinnini was an envoy dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict at the time (a failed assignement I might add so apparently his
profound knowlege of the region were not very useful there!) Hoar, who was
a Dean advisor by the way, made some pretty dire predictions about the
initial military campaign saying "The result would be high casualties on
both sides, as well as in the civilian community." Of course that was
quickly demonstrated to be incorrect, with Hoars credibility in such matters
diminishing in the process. In any case, Zinnini and Hoar are entitled to
their opinions but there are plenty of ex-officials, inluding numerous high
level military commanders who agree with the decision to dipose Saddam. In
fact Zinnini's and Hoars opinions were most noteworthy in that they were
among the exceptions.


Certainly not on the 'left' despite your propagandist rant.



There you go again with the sloppiness. Nowhere did I say your sources were
"left", although they may well be. Perhaps you should try diagramming the
threads so you can keep up.

Also, I wonder if you have any idea how ironic your "propagandist rant"
accusation is given your angry crazed repetitive ramblings.?!


Bush is a miserable failure.


I bet his list of accomplishments surpasses yours many times over, so you
must be a complete miserable failure, and therefore poorly qualified to pass
judgement on anything of significance!


We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.


Probably just your paranoia showing. On 9/11 large numbers of American
civilians were murdered. How many have been murdered by the terrorists
since? As for me, I feel better knowing the enemy has largely been denied
his refuges and sponsorers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that many of the
worst of them have died at the hands of our military with even more destined
for the same fate.


But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA



All this statement tells me is that you fail to understand of how
significantly the United States, Iraq and the world has benefited from
Saddams removal, not to mention how you lack the imagination to glimpse the
potential long term benefits of the creation of an Arab democracy. I
believe the loss of American lives was a large but worthwhile price to pay,
and my impression is that for the most part the US soldiers who are putting
their lives on the line would agree.

Jarg

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:HtuJc.1563$Zr.663@okepread01...
"WalterM140" wrote

I served in the military, and I was in both the Infantry, and a crewmember in
the USAF. I retired in 1993 after 25 years.

I spent 8 years in the Iran-Iraq war,.....

You spent it doing what, and on which side....Iran or Iraq? AFAIK, our only
involvement in that war was that we taught Saddam Hussein's army how to use
chemical weapons, and we shared intelligence data with them that we'd gathered
about our joint enemy, Iran. So what were you doing during those eight years,
teaching them how to use mustard gas?

.....and witnessed the attack on the U.S.S. Stark.

How did you happen to witness that attack? Surely, not from your vantage point
in your infantry foxhole, so it must have been from your airplane. How about
filling us in on how you happened to see it?

.....I spent my last years on active duty in the air war that ejected Iraq
from Kuwait,

I think the half million or so ground troops we committed to kicking the Iraqis
out of Kuwait would take exception to your conclusion that the air war had
accomplished that all by itself. I expect that Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf
might also have had a few things to say on the subject by way of argument.

.....and two years of wasting our treasury on containing Iraq. For 24 years
we
fought that country, and millions of Iraqis, and Iranians died.

24 years? How about the time we were helping Iraq deal with their Iranian
neighbors during their 8 year old war, which was right in the middle of the 24
years you're talking about?

You know, a lot of us have problems remember details of things we've done and
said in the past, and it isn't a crime to have to admit it. But if you expect
to have any credibility in this forum, you're going to need to do a little more
homework and get your facts right before you start mouthing off with a lot of
erroneous BS. I probably wouldn't have had any questions to ask you at all if
you hadn't tossed such obvious bloopers out there for us rubes to swallow hook,
line, and sinker.

George Z.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net...
"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Bush is a miserable failure. We are less safe now than we were on 9/11.

But now we have almost 900 KIA and nothing to show for it.

No one -- certainly no one who served in the military -- could think that
the
reasons Bush 43 has given -- shutting down the torture chambers, bringing
'freedom' to Iraq, and the rest, could possibly be worth 900 KIA


Informed, intelligent people understand the reasons for the war on terror.
It is unlikely you ever served in the military.

We were discussing the war with Iraq. Let's not change that subject, eh?

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
m...

We were discussing the war with Iraq. Let's not change that subject, eh?


I didn't.

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...


His aiders and abettors, the United States Supreme Court, disallowed the Habeas
Corpus petetiton Padilla's lawyer filled because he filed it in New York, not
where Padilla is now being held, in South Carolina.

IMHO, that was incorrect inasmuch as he had been moved form New York
to South Carolina and is held there by the same sovreign, and is being
held one presumes, for the same reasons and on the same evidence,
though absent a hearing one doesn't know what justification, if
any, the Feds have for holding him. While I do not believe he was
moved to do an end-run around a habeas petition this ruling opens
the door on that tactic.

By ruling on the jurisdictional issue the USSC avoided ruling one way or
the other on the substantive one.

HOWEVER, another case heard by the court did address the exact same
substantive issue raised in Padilla and that ruling upheld habeas,
thus mooting the substantive issue in Padilla.

So, your characterisation was, to say the least, inaccurate.

The USSC handed America a great victory that day.

--

FF