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
  #21  
Old May 26th 04, 04:50 AM
Robey Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I posited:

Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.


To which Ed retorted:

That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
"Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
there and get my ass kicked...."?


Ed, you're trying to apply western military "common sense" to maniacal
islamist ****S. That's like saying the Japanese wouldn't crash their
perfectly good airplanes into our ships. I think you're making a
terrible mistake.

So how about this for "common sense?" Porous borders, target rich
environment (that'd be our guys), and extremely friendly environment
to conduct a guerilla war (that'd be the native populace that doesn't
look like you or me). Tell us, what BETTER place to go kill the
infidels than Iraq? There is no EASIER nation to find places to hide
and kill Americans! And since when do islamist ****S that think
becoming martyrs and getting 72 virgins use COMMON SENSE that you and
I do?

[note to anybody thinking of using the example of Ansar al-Islam,
from a Washington TIMES not Post article on 21 Sep 2003, A military
source recently told The Washington Times that Ansar al-Islam
"certainly had al Qaeda ties," although it's "probably not correct" to
say the group collaborated with Saddam, because it was based north of
the "green line" - the border between Saddam's prewar Iraq and the
protected northern no-fly zone. ]

Further in a Mar 4 2004 Knight Ritter article..

Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that
Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism
network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those
meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials
said. That verdict was in a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of
Intelligence that was updated in January 2003, on the eve of the war.

"We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda," a
senior U.S. official acknowledged. He and others spoke on condition of
anonymity.

I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.


Ed...hate to burst your bubble (OK no I actually love it) read on.

The implication of some sort of puppet-mastery, the labeling of the
administration with the "pejorative du jour"--neo-con,


Help me out here, Scott McConnell http://www.amconmag.com/aboutus.html
the Executive Editor of The American Conservative is a dedicated
liberal? [Answer: No he is not a dedicated liberal]

Try this article on for size
http://www.amconmag.com/04_21_03/cover.html

Karen Kwiatkowski a dedicated liberal? How about this interview she
did with LA Weekly http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

[quote] Kwiatkowski got there just as war fever was spreading, or
being spread as she would later argue, through the halls of
Washington. Indeed, shortly after her arrival, a piece of NESA was
broken off, expanded and re-dubbed with the Orwellian name of the
Office of Special Plans. The OSP’s task was, ostensibly, to help the
Pentagon develop policy around the Iraq crisis.

She would soon conclude that the OSP — a pet project of Vice President
Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld — was more akin to a
nerve center for what she now calls a “neoconservative coup, a
hijacking of the Pentagon.”

Though a lifelong ****conservative,*** Kwiatkowski found herself
appalled as the radical wing of the Bush administration, including her
superiors in the Pentagon planning department, bulldozed internal
dissent, overlooked its own intelligence and relentlessly pushed for
confrontation with Iraq. [uquote]

Ed you're gonna have to redefine liberal as anybody who opposes your
way of thinking. Or perhaps you could simply call us "unpatriotic."
Hows that for a pejorative du jour?

the attribution of "arrogance" and the insertion of
a clutch of red herrings like Iran, Syria and NK.


I do think it was arrogant to invade Iraq and then take umbrage that
long time allies/friends would deign to express opposition. "Old
europe" ring any bells? It reasonably sounds like Rumsfeld was
dismissing the opinions of old friends as irrelevant. That's not
arrogant behavior? Please, Ed.

Why do your cohorts "honestly think" (I question the verb and would
substitute "believe" rather than "think",) that Iran and Syria are
next?


OK quibble with my grammar, give me an F on my next term paper 8-)

Red herring? My happy ass! I guess when guys tell me flat out, "Hell
yes once we finish in Iraq we gonna go for Iran and Syria." And these
same guys say we're gonna find lots (OK they said **** loads) of WMD
in Iraq I tend to think these guys think it. These are gentlemen that
rose to equal to or higher rank than you or me.

Most observers see a solid shift in Iran away from theocracy and
a desire by the population at large to return to a moderately pro-West
secularism. Good progress.


Agreed and this was before 9/11, and who exactly enunciated "the Axis
of Evil?" And which three countries did this obvious liberal indicate?

Syria is still hostile but not as hostile as they were during Dad's regime.
They know what they can and cannot get away with.


So why does that last statement carry weight WRT to Syria, but SH kept
bottled up in a fraction of his country posed an imminent threat?

"Vast stockpiles" of WMD don't require lots of space. As noted, 3
liters of Sarin in a package the size of a half-gallon of milk and a
loaf of bread. How far can you disperse 200 such packages in a country
the size of Iraq.?


OK, and maybe lots of stuff had been destroyed. According to Tom
Brokaw's report tonight, this shell pre-dated Desert Storm.

Why didn't Saddam use them? Maybe he felt it wasn't
worth it? Maybe he didn't get the chance? Maybe he had a CCC/I
breakdown and subordinates refused? Who knows.


So how does a guy that from 1991 to 2003 couldn't get his collective
**** together and coordinate "in the event of lost communications"
shoot this **** into Kuwait, ALSO present a threat to use WMD? ****
how much probable cause does somebody need? We invaded his country.

Oh Ed..."maybe he felt it wasn't worth it?" The man fought a long ass
war with Iran, he used WMD then. "Maybe he didn't get the chance?" My
first thought in response is YGBSM, but hey if that's what you think
OK.

The point of the discussion is that with the introduction of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in small packages into the hands of
non-national, and arguably irrational actors, the paradigm of war has
changed.


Indeed, **** happens.

We can't continue to subsribe to the 18th century
international law concept of justification for war being an invasion
or violent attack.


Why not?

We can't pre-empt, willy-nilly around the world,
but the complexities and interdependence of 21st century international
relations effectively constrain any superpowers actions.


Events from a year ago would clearly contradict that assertion. I
agree that we should not.

We haven't been known through out the last century for maintaining
occupation of any nations beyond the need to stablilize the situation.


The pedant in me would point to South Vietnam and our effort to
prevent the domino effect in SEA. I'd argue that domestic public
opposition and the resulting congressional termination of funding
(rather than stability) dictated our withdrawal.

(Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas"
used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking
points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.)


Sorry, I actually used it as an undergrad in political science, almost
30 years ago. [Later I had a Flight Surgeon friend that joked that
fighter pilots could handle multisyllabic words like mayonaisse]
Calling GWB a low C graduate of Yale and citing his Norm Crosby-isms
would have been jejune. If however you inferred that I meant to slight
GWB's intellectual prowess and his grasp of international relations,
well that is indeed what I implied.

As for gravitas, can we look at the administration of GWB and that of
his predecessor? Albright vs Powell? Cohen vs Rumsfeld? Carville and
26-year old "senior advisor" Stephanopolous?


Indeed GWB has many sharp folks in his administration, but the guy
calling the shots...yeeesh.

Gravitas in the closet of the Oval Office with an intern?


Ahhh, blowjobs bad, invasions good. Got it. FWIW I would never
introduce any female I admired or respected to Clinton, but I'd trust
him to get a bigger and more united coalition going before he invaded
Iraq. Not that I think he would have invaded Iraq.

Finally...a crusty old LtCol SEFE that I flew with 20 years ago liked
to ask," What's the BOLDFACE for A Bad Blowjob?"

To which I loudly replied, "There's no such thing as a Bad Blowjob."

"Shut up Robey!...now anybody else?"

1. HAIR-PULL
2. FACE-SLAP
3. HEAD-PUSH
  #23  
Old May 26th 04, 06:42 AM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.


One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
inspectors.

If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were
never even supposed to exist.

Therefore, there's a place with a bunch more of these things, *not*
destroyed or accounted for. This one shell, by itself, shows that Iraq
*did* have a whole segment of its chemical weapons program that was
never even touched by the UN.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #24  
Old May 26th 04, 11:25 AM
Paul J. Adam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
(Just as an aside, how many times have you heard the word "gravitas"
used in any context before the summer of 2000? Can you say "talking
points" and "sound bite"? I knew that you could.)


Actually, if you're an Iain M. Banks fan, he got quite fond of
"gravitas" as a starship naming convention in his science fiction, and
that certainly predates 2000.


Interviewer: Do you have a favourite starship name?

Banks: "No I've got an entire class of starship names - the Gravitas
series!. Someone comments on starship names being somewhat lacking in
gravitas and suddenly you get all these ships - Stood Rather Far Back
When The Gravitas Was Handed Out. Not Very Much Gravitas Here and the
Zen one which is called Not Very Much "You Know What" Definitely a
Gravitas name, but it doesn't mention the word gravitas. They're
building up faster than I can use them." He laughs. "Gratuitous starship
naming - it is a problem, but I'm coping with it."


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk
  #25  
Old May 26th 04, 11:27 AM
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.


One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
inspectors.


What inspectors? I don't really think we know much about that round.


If they found this one, that means there were a *lot* more that were
never even supposed to exist.


Perhaps, perhaps not.

Therefore, there's a place with a bunch more of these things, *not*
destroyed or accounted for. This one shell, by itself, shows that Iraq
*did* have a whole segment of its chemical weapons program that was
never even touched by the UN.


Or perhaps it was not even Iraqi and it came across those famously porous
borders sometime in the last 12 months or so. I don't really believe that; but
my point is, we just don't know, so therefore only a fool would try to draw a
conclusion from the meager information at hand.


Vaughn




  #26  
Old May 26th 04, 12:05 PM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.

One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
inspectors.


It's still -one- round in over a year of searching.

Even -if- you could buy off on a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq (before
9/11) and even -if- you thought Iraq had WMD, which they did not, you could
still, and should still -- hold the Bush administration culpable for their
gross mishandling of the conduct of the war.

More General Zinni, 5/12/2004:

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/p...ID=2208&from_p
age=../program/document.cfm

Bullet points from above:

1. the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief that
containment as a policy doesn't work.

2. The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was
flawed.

3. The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to
create a false rationale for going in to get public support.

4. We failed in number four, to internationalize the effort.

5. I think the fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task.

6. The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting
the exiles

7. The seventh problem has been the lack of planning.

8. The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground.

9. The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there.

10. the tenth mistake, and that's a series of bad decisions on the ground.

[end]

Walt
  #27  
Old May 26th 04, 12:52 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
One sarin round after 12 months, that's hardly impressive Ed.


One sarin round, of a type that Iraq never had, according to the
inspectors.


It's still -one- round in over a year of searching.

Even -if- you could buy off on a connection between Al Quaida and Iraq (before
9/11) and even -if- you thought Iraq had WMD, which they did not, you could
still, and should still -- hold the Bush administration culpable for their
gross mishandling of the conduct of the war.

More General Zinni, 5/12/2004:

http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/p...ID=2208&from_p
age=../program/document.cfm

Bullet points from above:

1. the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief that
containment as a policy doesn't work.

2. The second mistake I think history will record is that the strategy was
flawed.

3. The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to
create a false rationale for going in to get public support.

4. We failed in number four, to internationalize the effort.

5. I think the fifth mistake was that we underestimated the task.

6. The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting
the exiles

7. The seventh problem has been the lack of planning.

8. The eighth problem was the insufficiency of military forces on the ground.

9. The ninth problem has been the ad hoc organization we threw in there.

10. the tenth mistake, and that's a series of bad decisions on the ground.

[end]


Walt, if that were the end, we could probably find some way to live with them,
but they'd like another four years in which to compound and add to the mess
they've collectively created. That'd be the 11th problem, because the public
hasn't fully perceived the danger to our nation in letting them get another bite
out of the apple.

George Z.

Walt



  #29  
Old May 26th 04, 04:26 PM
Leslie Swartz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Correction:

Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.

Surprising? No.

Steve Swartz

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
I love the argument techniques of the dedicated liberal.


Already reduced to name calling, Ed?

General Zinni is not a liberal. He strongly urged that we not invade

Iraq, Al
Quaida or no.

Walt



  #30  
Old May 26th 04, 04:51 PM
David Lesher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Rasimus writes:

Uhhh, Ed there are reports that the presence of AQ is
post-invasion/occupation. That's if you believe folks like Karen
Kwiatkowski LtCol USAF (Ret). Nobody disputes AQ is now in Iraq, but
there is a wide credibility gap connecting AQ and Iraq pre-invasion.


That doesn't stand the "common sense" test. If there were no linkages
and AQ was not welcome in Saddam's Iraq, why would it be attractive to
come rushing into the potentially hazardous environment post conflict?
"Oh boy, the friendly regime is gone, I'd better buy a ticket to go
there and get my ass kicked...."?


How about "That ruthless dictator is gone, as are his army & border guards.
Now we CAN move into Iraq, and as a plus, we can harass the Westerners that
are there as well.."

It sure does not look to me like the CPA has the lock on the country that
SH had...




--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
 




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 08:26 PM.


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