[Rhodes22-list]Politics: Muhammed, Prophet of Doom

Thu Oct 14 13:07:25 EDT 2004

Brad,

My "rush" refers to moving to quickly from Afghanstan to attacking Iraq. My 
use of the word rush also applies to our panic driven reaction to 911. We 
rushed from Afghanstan into Iraq. It is not a campaign theme, it is reality. 
I don't need further careful analysis, the facts are quite clear. You can 
provide all of the links, quotes, recomend books but the facts don't change.

I have no idea how your post address mine? Viet Nam is not an election issue 
with me. It is obvious we didn't learn any lessons from that mess. I my view 
you have lost perspective on this war. You seem to be saying that any ends 
justify any means. The president and his gang baited the hook and you 
swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Wally

>From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list]Politics: Muhammed, Prophet of Doom
>Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Wally,
>
>Forgive me for borrowing a joke from the Wall Street
>Journal but here goes:
>
>Have you heard the one about the turtle that got
>mugged by a gang of snails? The police arrived on the
>scene and asked the turtle what happened. "I don't
>know," he replied. "It all happened so fast."
>
>The "Rush to War" is a campaign slogan, not a
>thoughtful analysis of our engagement in Iraq.  The
>official position of the US Government was that Saddam
>needed to be overthrown.  Bush 41 promulgated that in
>1991 but didn't do anything about it.  Clinton made it
>his official policy in 1998 with support from people
>like John Kerry.  Except for four days of missle
>strikes in 98', he did nothing.  Bush 43 spent six
>months making his case to the public, Congress, and
>the UN. Thirteen years of policy formulation is hardly
>a "rush".
>
>We are making progress in Iraq but the real success
>will depend on the Iraqi's themselves.  John Kerry is
>smoking crack if he thinks the French or anyone else
>is going to come to their aid.  The French have
>already said no (suprise).  Kerry was wrong about
>Vietnam.  He testified to the Senate in 1972 that
>about 3000 Vietnamese would be killed if we pulled
>out.  He was off the mark by in excess of a million.
>
>You don't like war, I don't like war, but debating
>this "Rush to War" is becoming like debating someones
>bumper sticker.
>
>Brad Haslett
>"CoraShen"
>
>--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Brad,
> >
> > The implication of my logic is we should have taken
> > more TIME in
> > Afghanastan. I am not sure if we needed more troops
> > or not. We should have
> > worked harder going after Bin Laden while rebuilding
> > . We could have
> > developed the intelligence. We rushed into Iraq.
> > That is my point. We could
> > have blown Iraq up when ever we wanted. It was a bad
> > plan. We rushed in
> > based on bad intel. This is a fact.
> >
> > Time would have also allowed us to work with the
> > Turks and other countries.
> > What if we waited a year? Who knows what further
> > diplomacy would have lead
> > to. If we had a success story in Afghanastan I
> > really believe this would
> > have helped. If diplomacy didn't work we could blow
> > them up without a plan
> > any time we wanted.
> >
> > Wally
> > >From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list]Politics: Muhammed,
> > Prophet of Doom
> > >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
> > >
> > >Wally,
> > >
> > >The implication of your logic is that had we thrown
> > >more men and equipment into Afghanistan we would
> > have
> > >been more successful.  We did pretty well except
> > for
> > >not getting THE one guy.  The Soviets spent ten
> > years
> > >there with massive amounts of troops and hardware
> > and
> > >couldn't prevail.  What we accomplished there in a
> > >short time period  is nothing less than awesome
> > >compared to the Soviets.  Could we have used more
> > >intel? Yes. But intel in that region comes from the
> > >local warlords, not our own people save for
> > satellites
> > >and drones.  Suggesting that we somehow dropped the
> > >ball on Bin Laden makes for good political rhetoric
> > >but from a military perspective, it's simply not
> > >feasable to surround every mountain along the
> > >Afgahnistan/Pakistan border.
> > >
> > >We could have really used the 4th ID in Northern
> > Iraq.
> > >  The Turks didn't co-operate and the logistics
> > didn't
> > >allow them in Kuwait because the docks were already
> > >backed up. Military historians will debate the
> > impact
> > >of that for a hundred years.  It hurt.
> > >
> > >Justification of the war will have to wait until
> > >tomorrow.  I've been "dozing for dollars" this
> > >afternoon, otherwise known as airport standby, and
> > >just got alerted for a departure to Orlando.  See
> > you
> > >tomorrwow.
> > >
> > >Brad
> > >
> > >
> > >--- Wally Buck <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Brad,
> > > >
> > > > What is bull shit???? You don't think attacking
> > Iraq
> > > > reduced our focus and
> > > > capabilities in Afghanistan? Come on Brad get
> > real!
> > > > As well read as you are
> > > > I would thing you would realize that fighting 2
> > wars
> > > > (multiple fronts)
> > > > creates problems. If the take over of Iraq was
> > as
> > > > quick and easy as Bush
> > > > expected you might be right. However we under
> > > > estimated the difficulty in
> > > > completing our mission. We screwed this up big
> > time!
> > > >
> > > > Sanctions were working. Yes it is true that the
> > oil
> > > > for food program was a
> > > > disaster. As you pointed out Iraq discontinued
> > their
> > > > WMD programs because of
> > > > the sanctions. Now what they may or may not have
> > > > down when the sanctions
> > > > ended is just speculation.
> > > >
> > > > I will tell you what is bull shit; attacking
> > Iraq
> > > > because of WMD and 911.
> > > > You can choose to ignore the facts and buy into
> > the
> > > > line of BS handed down
> > > > from Bush and Cheney. And you expect me to
> > believe
> > > > that even though we were
> > > > sold a bill of goods from Bush the war is
> > justified?
> > > > You have got to be
> > > > kidding!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Wally
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >From: brad haslett <flybrad at yahoo.com>
> > > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > >To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> > > > <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > > >Subject: RE: [Rhodes22-list]Politics:
> > Muhammed,
> > > > Prophet of Doom
> > > > >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > >
> > > > >Wally,
> > > > >
> > > > >We agree on this, there is plenty to be
> > nervious
> > > > >about.  I disagree with you about sanctions
> > > > working.
> > > > >They were working for the French, Germans,
> > > > Russians,
> > > > >and Chinese, but especially the French.  The
> > > > >oil-for-food program was working quite well for
> > > > >Saddam, he continued to build palaces and buy
> > arms.
> > > > It
> > > > >didn't stop him from continuing to support
> > > > terrorists
> > > > >by paying money to families of Palistiniens who
> > > > killed
> > > > >Jews.  The Duelfer report clearly shows Saddam
> > > > hadn't
> > > > >given up on WMD, he was just waiting for
> > sanctions
> > > > to
> > > > >end.  Saddam's nuclear bomb builder said in the
> >  NY
> > > > >Times they could re-start the nuclear program
> > in
> > > > "the
> > > > >snap of a finger".  WMD is a political problem
> > for
> > > > >Bush because that's how he sold the war, it
> > doesn't
> > > > >mean the war wasn't justified.
> > > > >
> > > > >This business that everyone talks about of not
> > > > >concentrating on Bin Laden is Bullshit!  Let me
> > put
> > > > >that in more family friendly terms,
> > unadulterated
> > > > pure
> > > > >Bullshit!  Bin Laden most likely was at Bora
> > Bora.
> > > > >The Afghans kicked the Soviets ass there.  They
> > had
> > > > >the terrain, the tunnels, the escape routes,
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > >experience. We threw thousands of air sorties
> > > > against
> > > > >them.  More boots on the ground would have
> > meant
> > > > more
> > > > >dead American soldiers, not a more effective
> > force.
> > > > >Some of the local militia leaders turned out to
> > be
> > > > not
> > > > >trustworthy.  But, to think that we could have
> > > > thrown
> > > > >more 20 year-olds at the situation and made a
> > > > >difference is military foolishness.  It ignores
> > > > >history, terrain, and reality.  We'll get Bin
> > Laden
> > > > >but that won't be the end of the problem.  This
> > > > fight
> > > > >will last for years.
> > > > >
> > > > >Unless of course you believe that terriorism is
> >
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
>http://vote.yahoo.com
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/