[Rhodes22-list] Politics: How's It Going?

[TN Rhodey]

Herb,

That is funny. Now you say you didn't even read my posts. Yet in your 
response you accused me of not reading yours. And then try you attempt to 
quote me but you botch the job.  If that isnt BS I don't lnow what is.

Fair Winds,

Wally


>From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
>Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics: How's It Going?
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:15:22 -0500
>
>Wally,
>
>I pretty much stopped reading your post after your first sentence.
>
>
>=====
>Herb,
>Wasn't there something called the Marshall plan after World War II?
>=====
>
>I just barely saw the rest, and leaving off "almost" wasn't an attempt to 
>change what you said. (more on that in a bit).
>
>Keep in mind, on a mail list, what is read and responded to exists almost 
>on different "planes of existence". You had a chain of thoughts in your 
>mind when you responded to my post. On the other hand, when I read your 
>response, I had just completed reading three other posts that talked about 
>our plans AFTER WWII (which had NOTHING to do with what I posted). I read 
>yours, and as it started off, it read as yet ANOTHER response that had 
>nothing to do with what was posted.
>
>My ORIGINAL email on this topic was in response to a posting that talked 
>about us "not having a plan". I maintain now, as I did then, that we had a 
>plan.
>
>Just as the average American knew little to nothing about our plans in 
>WWII, the average American knows little or nothing about our plans in Iraq. 
>Just as the "original" plans (believe me, they didn't involve dropping two 
>very powerful bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilians) in WWII 
>changed frequently, without the knowledge of the American people, so do our 
>plans in Iraq.
>
>In this, comparing the two is NOT "apples and oranges."
>
>You and I may agree much on many things, but I haven't resorted to stating 
>your opinions are "BS". That is subject to change of course. Like most in 
>the world, I get tired of having stuff thrown at me.
>
>The bottom line is that NEITHER of us, you OR I, are supposed to "know" 
>what "the plan" is. We are supposed to vote into office those that we trust 
>to run our country, including the Command in Chief of the US Military 
>forces, the LET THEM DO WHAT WE VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE TO DO. This 
>President won, not once but twice. One of those wins was after the war had 
>started. The war was a big part of that election, and HE WON ANYWAY.
>
>
>  I STILL submit that MUCH of the world was very much anti-America at the 
>end of WWII. Even our allies were quickly abandoning "our cause" because it 
>wasn't "their cause". Stopping the Axis powers was only a small part of 
>their overall goal. The proof of that is in the pudding, Russia (soon to be 
>the USSR) and China were considered enemies shortly after the war. Add 
>those two together, and blows holes all over your "almost the whole world 
>was on our side".
>
>Herb Parsons
>
>S/V O'Jure
>1976 O'Day 25
>Lake Grapevine, N TX
>
>S/V Reve de Papa
>1971 Coronado 35
>Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
>
> >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 6/5/2006 12:23:58 pm >>>
>Herb,
>
>I still am not sure you get what I am saying. I agree (and have agreed)
>there were un-revealed post-war plans for both WW II and Iraq. So we are in
>agreement here. No big deal.
>
>I am of the opinion that our plan for Iraq was/is based on fear, greed,
>misinformation and faulty intelligence. Based on your comments you 
>disagree.
>It would appear you think we attacked Iraq at the right time and for the
>right reasons. Even Bush has started to admit to some mistakes. As they say
>ignorance is bliss!
>
>You didn't address your misquote. I called your comment BS because you were
>wrong. You misquoted me and the proof is in the post. Of course you can 
>post
>all you want but if you are going to use quotes you should try to get it
>right. If you want others to respect your opinion take care to quote
>accurately. It doesn't help your cause to change facts or quotes to support
>your view point. In fact is does just the opposite.
>
>Wally
>
> >From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics: How's It Going?
> >Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:53:36 -0500
> >
> >Hmmm, don't recall ever saying there wasn't a plan. As a matter of fact,
> >the constant assertion that there isn't/wasn't a plan was the point of my
> >post.
> >
> >While the wars in Iraq and WWII are definitely "apples and oranges", 
>there
> >are consistencies between them. There is nothing wrong with drawing the
> >comparison between the two that in NEITHER case is there a "plan" that's
> >revealed to the general public, or even most of the top government
> >officials. The absence of that revelation does not indicate a lack of a
> >plan.
> >
> >Sorry if you think my posting is "BS" or that I was "bitching you out"
> >about something. If you don't like what I have to say, I suggest you not
> >read it, or not respond. Otherwise, I will feel free to continue to post
> >when the mood strikes me.
> >
> >Herb Parsons
> >
> >S/V O'Jure
> >1976 O'Day 25
> >Lake Grapevine, N TX
> >
> >S/V Reve de Papa
> >1971 Coronado 35
> >Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
> >
> > >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 6/5/2006 9:50:35 am >>>
> >Herb,
> >
> >Of course I read your question. Thanks for admitting that I am 
>correct....
> >Iraq and World War II are apples and oranges. Using one to draw 
>conclusions
> >about the other does not make much sense. You are the one that keeps
> >wanting
> >to compare one to the other.
> >
> >That being said I still think we had a plan(s) for post war Iraq. Just
> >because I don't know what the heck it is doesn't mean we didn't have one. 
>I
> >do think the plan has gone to hell. Do you really think we went to war 
>with
> >out a plan? And this is the side you are supporting? Too funny!
> >
> >I like the way you try to quote my post and leave words out. Nice try but
> >that BS isn't going to fly. I said "almost" the whole world was with us
> >after WW II. Scroll down and re-read. I stand by that remark. Are you
> >saying
> >something different? Yeah Russia has some issues but the fact is most of
> >the
> >world was with us. Are you saying that the "most" of the world was not 
>with
> >us? If so my respect for your intelligence just dropped a notch lower. 
>You
> >actually are going to bitch about me not reading your post while at the
> >same
> >time mis-quoting me? LOL!
> >
> >
> >Wally
> >
> >
> > >From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics: How's It Going?
> > >Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 08:10:00 -0500
> > >
> > >Wally,
> > >
> > >I'll ask again, did you read my question? Your answer pretty clearly
> > >indicates you didn't. "Wasn't there something called the Marshall plan
> > >AFTER World War II?" (my emphasis). "After" hardly qualifies as 6 
>months
> > >prior. I'm sure someone will come up with a plan on how to divvy up
> >things
> > >in Iraq "after" it's over. Assuming, of course, that the cut-and-run
> >crowed
> > >doesn't get their way, we may even be in on the plan. If we'd quit WWII
> > >after the first 3 years, there'd have ben no Marshall plan, you can be
> > >sure.
> > >
> > >Also, "the whole world" was not with us on WWII, or else there'd have
> >been
> > >no need for war. There WAS another side. Even after the war, Russia was
> >not
> > >"with us". All of which points to one thing you're right about, it IS
> > >apples and oranges.
> > >
> > > >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 6/5/2006 6:27:07 am >>>
> > >Herb,
> > >
> > >Wasn't there something called the Marshall plan after World War II?
> >Almost
> > >the whole world was on our side and we were clearly the good guys. Iraq
> >and
> > >WW II are apples and oranges. We attacked Iraq. The country did not ask
> >for
> > >our aid.  It was a planned pre-emptive strike. Of course there was a
> >plan.
> > >Our plan was based on the premise that we would be welcomed. Don't you
> > >think
> > >Iraq and WW II are really apples and oranges?
> > >
> > >Every military action has a plan as well as back up plans. Sometimes 
>the
> > >plans suck. So now that we are there what do we do? Dropping our guns 
>and
> > >running for the border is out of the question. We made this mess and it
> >is
> > >up to us to try to clean it up. At this point there are no easy 
>answers.
> >I
> > >do think we need to be shooting for something sooner rather than later.
> > >
> > >Wally
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: DCLewis1 at aol.com
> > > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > > >To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics:  How's It Going?
> > > >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 22:39:08 EDT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Herb,
> > > >
> > > >Re a plan for the end of WWII prior  to the end of WWII, I believe if
> > >you
> > > >read reports of the Yalta conference it was pretty much mapped out
> > > >geographically and geo-politically.  American units were deployed and
> > > >operations were
> > > >timed explicitly to be sure we got our agreed territory vice a  land
> >grab
> > > >by the
> > > >Soviets.  Additionally, units were identified to occupy  Germany (and 
>I
> > > >might
> > > >add sufficient and appropriate units, none of this better,  faster,
> > >cheaper
> > > >crap, we had boots on the ground).
> > > >
> > > >Additionally, I believe MacArthur had a plan for occupying Japan via
> >the
> > > >existing Emperor based government.  It was not a case of  his 
>standing
> > >on
> > > >the
> > > >deck of the Missouri in Tokyo bay and wondering aloud "Jeez guys,
> >waddya
> > > >think
> > > >we ought to do now?".  The need to occupy was clear, explicit  
>problems
> > > >with
> > > >any occupation had been identified (which I believe is  why we kept 
>the
> > > >emperor
> > > >on) and units were available (again, sufficient  units).
> > > >
> > > >But we actually it through back then, that's what's different.
> > > >
> > > >Dave
> > > >__________________________________________________
> > > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > >
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> > >
> > >__________________________________________________
> > >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >__________________________________________________
> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list