Ever had a Federal officer at your day? I did once. They were background
checking a neighbor for a job in the justice dept. Should I have cringed
in horror at the blacksuits at my door?

I've had the feds check me out very thoroughly. That's part of the deal
when you apply for certain jobs, or need a certain military security
clearance. Invalid comparison. Just as the census is. Once again, you
(and slick) offer an unintelligent bull**** argument in response.

You check out a book on how to make ricin in your kitchen I hope you get a visit.

They have books like that at your local library? They don't here. Or is
this another bull**** argument?;-)

From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.

In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
at all costs."

Please make up your mind. Yesterday you actually indicated that you had
a backbone. Now, poof! it's gone again.

You really do not give a **** about your (or anybody else's) civil
liberties. You are yellow in the face of any danger. You want your
nice, cozy little life uninterrupted, and worse, you want somebody else
to risk their necks to protect it for you.

Did you know Ben Franklin? I think he wrote that quote with you in
mind. You deserve neither liberty or safety.

Slick, I hate to say this, but I think nob is smarter
than you.

You lose points for taking this long to figure this out.

Oh, I figured that out a while ago. I was hoping that I was wrong.

Strip away the neo-Middius rhetoric and Sackman is really pretty sad, mentally.

Sackman? Did you come up with this one because he's so blind it's like
he has a bag over his head?

Anyway, LOL! That's a good one!

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:00 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

One doesn't have personal liberties to
plot mass murder with overseas terrorists.

So *that's* what you've been up to.

No wonder you want to lose your rights. In your deeply conflicted
'mind' you want somebody to stop you from doing things that you know
deep inside are very wrong, but that you cannot stop yourself from
doing: plotting mass murder with overseas terrorists.

Rather than insult you, I think we should commend your rather rare
self-insighfulness. Most conservatives that I've met entirely lack this
capability.

Bravo!

Shhhh! said to the Big ****:

Strip away the neo-Middius rhetoric and Sackman is really pretty sad, mentally.

Sackman? Did you come up with this one because he's so blind it's like
he has a bag over his head?

Anyway, LOL! That's a good one!

Pity the witless, for they know not what they do......

Is Iraq a NATO mission yet?

Never will be with "allies" like Germany and France.

The Germans are in Afghanistan, as are Canada and several other nations
we berated for not following our bidding in going to Iraq. I'm not sure
about France.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2003/06-june/e0625a.htm

"Allies" have their own soveriegn nations, and they get to make up
their own minds based on their intelligence estimates and a review of
their options.

Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.
Hard to believe, but they saw things that bushie apparently didn't.

Shhhh! said:

Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.
Hard to believe, but they saw things that bushie apparently didn't.

Let's guess at the real reason(s) Dubya invaded Iraq. My fave (not bruited
much in the mainstream media) was to stifle Saddam's financing of
Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:00 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

One doesn't have personal liberties to
plot mass murder with overseas terrorists.

So *that's* what you've been up to.

No wonder you want to lose your rights. In your deeply conflicted
'mind' you want somebody to stop you from doing things that you know
deep inside are very wrong, but that you cannot stop yourself from
doing: plotting mass murder with overseas terrorists.

Rather than insult you, I think we should commend your rather rare
self-insighfulness. Most conservatives that I've met entirely lack this
capability.

Bravo!




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Clyde Slick
Date: Sat, Feb 18 2006 10:00 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

One doesn't have personal liberties to
plot mass murder with overseas terrorists.

So *that's* what you've been up to.

No wonder you want to lose your rights. In your deeply conflicted
'mind' you want somebody to stop you from doing things that you know
deep inside are very wrong, but that you cannot stop yourself from
doing: plotting mass murder with overseas terrorists.

Rather than insult you, I think we should commend your rather rare
self-insighfulness. Most conservatives that I've met entirely lack this
capability.

Bravo!


the bull**** gets piled higher and deeper.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.

In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
at all costs."

Actually I'm thinking of my kids. I doubt you have any.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
Is Iraq a NATO mission yet?

Never will be with "allies" like Germany and France.

The Germans are in Afghanistan, as are Canada and several other nations
we berated for not following our bidding in going to Iraq. I'm not sure
about France.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2003/06-june/e0625a.htm

"Allies" have their own soveriegn nations, and they get to make up
their own minds based on their intelligence estimates and a review of
their options.

Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.

So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
proof
it will be to save your ass from WMD.

As the backbone of America you seem to be awfully self centered.

Did you support intervention in Kosovo? Why? Why not Iraq?

ScottW

So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
proof it will be to save your ass from WMD.

What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives. Then, after one reason
doesn't come through, to change the focus for political reasons, rather
than reality, all the while with people in the line of fire.

I have been trained to analyze a mission, and virtually every component
necessary to accomplish that mission, in extreme detail. When doing so
in a situation like this, looking at second, third, and fourth order
effects is also necessary. This administration, in all cases, either
did not do so, or ignored the opinions and expertise of those who did.

There is no evidence now, nor was there then, that a delay in combat
operations of a few weeks or months would have led to an attack. Even
then there was no "If we don't do it now, we'll get hit immediately."
Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.

As the backbone of America you seem to be awfully self centered.

Another bull**** argument. Why?

Did you support intervention in Kosovo? Why?

Not only in Kosovo, but Bosnia and Afghanistan too. Even Darfur. I've
already explained why. They are not apples to apples vis Iraq. I
would've thought that you were bright enough to see that and to know
why.

Why not Iraq?

Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
dollars, anyway, so does it matter?

See above: poor planning, poor reasoning, poor intelligence, going it
alone unnecessarily, ignoring the UN (yeah, yeah, I know: the UN
sucks.), civilians basically over-ruling the military on needs (I refer
you back to Wolfowitz's statements on Shinseki's estimates as an
example), misuse of assets, bad decisions in the post-combat phases,
and so on. No big deal.

Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
proof it will be to save your ass from WMD.

What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives.

Sounds like Kosovo to me.

Then, after one reason
doesn't come through, to change the focus for political reasons, rather
than reality, all the while with people in the line of fire.

I have been trained to analyze a mission, and virtually every component
necessary to accomplish that mission, in extreme detail. When doing so
in a situation like this, looking at second, third, and fourth order
effects is also necessary. This administration, in all cases, either
did not do so, or ignored the opinions and expertise of those who did.

There is no evidence now, nor was there then, that a delay in combat
operations of a few weeks or months would have led to an attack. Even
then there was no "If we don't do it now, we'll get hit immediately."
Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.

What makes you think anything would have changed in a few weeks?

As the backbone of America you seem to be awfully self centered.

Another bull**** argument. Why?

Did you support intervention in Kosovo? Why?

Not only in Kosovo, but Bosnia and Afghanistan too. Even Darfur. I've
already explained why. They are not apples to apples vis Iraq.

Kosovo is completely ****ed up.. its just a much smaller scale than Iraq
and sits under the MSM radar.

I
would've thought that you were bright enough to see that and to know
why.

Why not Iraq?

Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
dollars, anyway, so does it matter?

I think it we'll be out in 3 years. Unlike Kosovo which will require
support forever.


See above: poor planning, poor reasoning, poor intelligence, going it
alone unnecessarily, ignoring the UN (yeah, yeah, I know: the UN
sucks.), civilians basically over-ruling the military on needs (I refer
you back to Wolfowitz's statements on Shinseki's estimates as an
example), misuse of assets, bad decisions in the post-combat phases,
and so on. No big deal.

Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing no fly zones on a regular
basis. Is this less provocation than Tonkin Gulf?
How about Panama?

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



Shhhh! said:

Gee. Don't the allies look pretty smart about now? No WMD after all.
Hard to believe, but they saw things that bushie apparently didn't.

Let's guess at the real reason(s) Dubya invaded Iraq. My fave (not bruited
much in the mainstream media) was to stifle Saddam's financing of
Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel.


Too good a reason to keep secret.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:9g9Kf.10921$2c4.6305@dukeread11...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.

In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
at all costs."

Actually I'm thinking of my kids. I doubt you have any.

ScottW




--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:9g9Kf.10921$2c4.6305@dukeread11...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 3:02 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Tell it to the victims. You whined and bitched that we don't
adequately value the lives of military and now you risk
civilians lives over your anti-government paranoia.

In other words, "I do not give a **** about civil liberties. Protect me
at all costs."

Actually I'm thinking of my kids. I doubt you have any.


I don't think he's old enough.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you won't advocate military intervention unless there is indisputable
proof it will be to save your ass from WMD.


Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.


No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick said:

Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.

What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
to further our interests?

Wait, I lost track of who said what....

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.

What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
to further our interests?

Wait, I lost track of who said what....


Looks that way to me.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives.

Sounds like Kosovo to me.

Kosovo is a spillover from Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and the
disintegration of Yugoslavia. Read up on Milosevic, Mladic, Karadic,
Govina, and the rest.

Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.

What makes you think anything would have changed in a few weeks?

Precisely. Why, then, the rush to combat?

In the eyes of much of the world, bushie wanted to rush in. Other
nations apparently conserve their troops and national wealth better
than we do. What could have changed is the opinions of some of the
other nations, like Germany and France, about committing their
resources to assist. It may not have (we'll never know) but the
situation in Iraq would've very likely not changed in the meantime.

Kosovo is completely ****ed up.. its just a much smaller scale than Iraq
and sits under the MSM radar.

Serbs tend to be paranoid. Perhaps they have reason to be. But
Milosevic was strictly on a land-grab as Yugoslavia fell apart. He
ended up with 51% of Bosnian territory when Bosnian Serbs constituted
about 35% of the population. They also kicked out the Croats and
Bosnian Muslims. Kosovo is an extention of that.

Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
dollars, anyway, so does it matter?

I think it we'll be out in 3 years. Unlike Kosovo which will require
support forever.

I think that you're dreaming Iraq. I hope that you're right but I
strongly doubt it.

Kosovo will probably turn in to an EU mission like Bosnia did last
year.

Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing no fly zones on a regular
basis.

So what? A few more months really didn't matter. North Korea regularly
shoots across the DMZ and has been for 60 years. Why not attack them?

Is this less provocation than Tonkin Gulf?

In that the US government launched an attack and escalated a war based
entirely on poor intelligence, lies and distortions, and that they made
the data fit what they wanted, they are the same. You are exactly
correct:

http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Art.../NHandrade.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ss20051201.htm

http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

How about Panama?

Fair enough. Like father, like son.

From: George M. Middius
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:51 pm
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
to further our interests?

Wait, I lost track of who said what....

I said that. Scott pointed out Panama.

You're both correct. Mexico was, I think, 1846. We weren't the biggest
and baddest then, but the principle is correct. We got most of the
southwest in that one. I'd forgotten about Panama. Might as well throw
Grenada in there too, which I had also forgotten about.

insert Scott's line here about my 'falsehoods' and 'lies'...

Somalia was a part of a UN security mission to insure that humanitarian
aid could get through. I'm not aware of what US interests were there.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Clyde Slick - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:15 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.

You're probably aware of 'measured response.'


we coudn't locate their aspirin factory.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 12:17 am
Email: "Clyde Slick"

No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.

You're probably aware of 'measured response.'

we coudn't locate their aspirin factory.

Apparently we couldn't locate their AA batteries either.

Funny, what with AWACS and JSTARS, and the radar and ECM capabilities
of US aircraft and all...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: George M. Middius
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:51 pm
Email: George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net

What about Panama, Mexico, Somalia, and all the other countries we invaded
to further our interests?

Wait, I lost track of who said what....

I said that. Scott pointed out Panama.

You're both correct. Mexico was, I think, 1846. We weren't the biggest
and baddest then, but the principle is correct. We got most of the
southwest in that one. I'd forgotten about Panama. Might as well throw
Grenada in there too, which I had also forgotten about.

I thought of Grenada but we invaded to expel the Cubans
who had taken over....

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Clyde Slick - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:15 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more.

No fly zone infractions were enough of a provocation.

You're probably aware of 'measured response.' After all, you seem to be
somewhat of a military expert, yes?

I'm also aware of impotent response as demonstrated by Clinton.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
What I no not advocate is a rush to military intervention with faulty
reasoning, a bad plan, based on hidden motives.

Sounds like Kosovo to me.

Kosovo is a spillover from Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and the
disintegration of Yugoslavia. Read up on Milosevic, Mladic, Karadic,
Govina, and the rest.

Before you ever commit soldiers it should be the absolutely last
resort. In this case it wasn't even close to that.

What makes you think anything would have changed in a few weeks?

Precisely. Why, then, the rush to combat?

What rush... we spent years on this... and then there's the stupid game of
brinkmanship Saddam so loved. You get all your troops in position
and spent millions on deployment and at the last interest I'll declare
a desire to negotiate. Iran is playing that game now.

In the eyes of much of the world, bushie wanted to rush in. Other
nations apparently conserve their troops and national wealth better
than we do. What could have changed is the opinions of some of the
other nations, like Germany and France, about committing their
resources to assist.

How many times does France have to say "never" before you
guys will believe them?

It may not have (we'll never know) but the
situation in Iraq would've very likely not changed in the meantime.

Kosovo is completely ****ed up.. its just a much smaller scale than Iraq
and sits under the MSM radar.

Serbs tend to be paranoid. Perhaps they have reason to be. But
Milosevic was strictly on a land-grab as Yugoslavia fell apart. He
ended up with 51% of Bosnian territory when Bosnian Serbs constituted
about 35% of the population. They also kicked out the Croats and
Bosnian Muslims. Kosovo is an extention of that.

For 20 years before Milosovich the KLA undertook a campaign
of murder against Serb officials killing police, judges, elected officials
and even simple teachers. The Albanian population refused to help
enforce the laws and keep the peace.
What is a nation to do in a case like this?

Milosovich did use this to create nationlist support for him but in the
end he was right. He said if Serbia doesn't enforce the law in Kosovo
and force the Albanians out... Kosovo would be lost to Serbia.

Well, we're there now for the next couple of decades and few trillion
dollars, anyway, so does it matter?

I think it we'll be out in 3 years. Unlike Kosovo which will require
support forever.

I think that you're dreaming Iraq. I hope that you're right but I
strongly doubt it.

In 3 years the cut and run crowd will have swayed US public
opinion. As I said before... as a nation we can only be trusted
until the next election.


Kosovo will probably turn in to an EU mission like Bosnia did last
year.

Iraq was shooting at our planes enforcing no fly zones on a regular
basis.

So what? A few more months really didn't matter. North Korea regularly
shoots across the DMZ and has been for 60 years. Why not attack them?

Because they remain a protectorate of China.
Don't you remember how the Korean war hostilities ended?


Is this less provocation than Tonkin Gulf?

In that the US government launched an attack and escalated a war based
entirely on poor intelligence, lies and distortions, and that they made
the data fit what they wanted, they are the same. You are exactly
correct:

http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Art.../NHandrade.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ss20051201.htm

http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/index.cfm

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

How about Panama?

Fair enough. Like father, like son.

Clinton actually engaged in for more military incursions than Bush Sr.
though they were all on a smaller scale and all but the Baltic campaigns
ended up with little or no consequence.

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 11:07 am
Email: "ScottW"

I thought of Grenada but we invaded to expel the Cubans
who had taken over....

But we weren't directly provoked. We used the justification of some
college students being in danger, IIRC.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 11:07 am
Email: "ScottW"

I thought of Grenada but we invaded to expel the Cubans
who had taken over....

But we weren't directly provoked. We used the justification of some
college students being in danger, IIRC.

I guess that puts every UN peace keeping we ever supported militarily
also applies. Sounds like your reputation you so desperately wanted to
preserve has even less basis than you thought.

ScottW

But we weren't directly provoked. We used the justification of some
college students being in danger, IIRC.

I guess that puts every UN peace keeping we ever supported militarily
also applies. Sounds like your reputation you so desperately wanted to
preserve has even less basis than you thought.

Another false argument. Why?

How many times does France have to say "never" before you
guys will believe them?

Who cares about France? They get to do what they do. What about the
rest of the world? Bush's approach was, and is, ****ed up.

Milosovich did use this to create nationlist support for him but in the
end he was right. He said if Serbia doesn't enforce the law in Kosovo
and force the Albanians out... Kosovo would be lost to Serbia.

Then I presume that Carla de Ponte's court will acquit him.

I think that you're dreaming Iraq. I hope that you're right but I
strongly doubt it.

In 3 years the cut and run crowd will have swayed US public
opinion. As I said before... as a nation we can only be trusted
until the next election.

Again with the spin machine terminology. Makes you sound dumb, you
know...

If this administration was really worried about it, they'd come out and
say, "You know what? This will take as long as it will take. It could
be 10 years."

They do not have the capability to be honest with the people though.
And they're really worried about the mid-terms now.

Precisely. Why, then, the rush to combat?

What rush... we spent years on this... and then there's the stupid game of
brinkmanship Saddam so loved. You get all your troops in position
and spent millions on deployment and at the last interest I'll declare
a desire to negotiate. Iran is playing that game now.

The UN weapons inspector asked for six more months, IIRC. There was no
reason to rush. We could have given that up and still accomplished what
we wanted had it been necessary. Yup, even if we had worked on it for
years.

So what? A few more months really didn't matter. North Korea regularly
shoots across the DMZ and has been for 60 years. Why not attack them?

Because they remain a protectorate of China.
Don't you remember how the Korean war hostilities ended?

Thus your argument is, "No-fly zone infractions are justification for
invading Iraq (because we could get away with it) but DMZ infractions,
counterfeiting, and a *verified* nuclear program are not justification
in the case of North Korea (because we couldn't).

That about it?

Clinton actually engaged in for more military incursions than Bush Sr.
though they were all on a smaller scale and all but the Baltic campaigns
ended up with little or no consequence.

By the way, we didn't occupy Grenada or Panama for any significant
amount of time.

I'm not against using the military, I'm against misusing it and then
lying about it.

I note that your Tonkin comparison goes unmentioned. Didn't that show
us what you wanted it to?;-)

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:51 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Nothing false about it.
You set the criteria of provocation. I doesn't hold in most instances of
US use of military force.

Actually, it does.

My, just when I think that you have a brain, reality sets back in.

Missions in conjunction with the UN or NATO, or as a result of honoring
a treaty for that matter, are not true invasions of a sovereign nation
like when we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. Little blips like Grenada
were probably more for political show. Perhaps I should've seperated
'republican' from 'Democrat.'

Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.

You're very good at dissembling the argument to the smallest possible
exception, ignoring the overall point, and then declaring the points
invalid. Sorry, but that's just plain old stupidity.

You can tell the difference, can't you?

We chose sides in a civil war in Korea and Vietnam. One side wanted us
there. That's really not that much different from the French siding
with us during our revolution. (Say, you *do* remember as you berate
the French that there would be no USA if not for them?).

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ps.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 2:51 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Nothing false about it.
You set the criteria of provocation. I doesn't hold in most instances of
US use of military force.

Actually, it does.

My, just when I think that you have a brain, reality sets back in.

Just when I think you had a point, facts get in the way.


Missions in conjunction with the UN or NATO, or as a result of honoring
a treaty for that matter, are not true invasions of a sovereign nation
like when we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. Little blips like Grenada
were probably more for political show. Perhaps I should've seperated
'republican' from 'Democrat.'

Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.

Did we have provocation? I think Germany declared war
first so I would say yes.


You're very good at dissembling the argument to the smallest possible
exception, ignoring the overall point, and then declaring the points
invalid. Sorry, but that's just plain old stupidity.

I'M stupid because YOU can't support your arguments with facts.



You can tell the difference, can't you?

We chose sides in a civil war in Korea and Vietnam.

Nonsense.. Korea was divided into occupation zones.
This was the first proxy war in the cold war.
Civil war had little to do with it.

Once again you need to get your facts straight.


One side wanted us
there. That's really not that much different from the French siding
with us during our revolution. (Say, you *do* remember as you berate
the French that there would be no USA if not for them?).

We paid them back 100 fold in 2 world wars.

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 4:14 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.

Did we have provocation? I think Germany declared war
first so I would say yes.

My point exactly: we were provoked. I'm talking unprovoked invasion, as
I have been all along. We didn't do it. I don't like the fact that we
now have.

Neither world war fits. Korea doesn't fit. Vietnam doesn't fit (even
with the Gulf of Tonkin ****ups we did not invade South Vietnam).
Strictly speaking, Grenada doesn't fit, although I am willing to give
you that one, and I was the one that reminded you of it. And I was
wrong: Panama actually *doesn't* fit:

"On December 15, 1989, Noriega sought and was given by the legislature
the title of chief executive officer of the government. The Noriega-led
assembly declared that a state of war with the United States existed.
The next day Panamanian soldiers killed an unarmed U.S. Marine officer
dressed in civilian clothes."

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/panamaus1989.htm

So Noriega declared war on us. A dead Marine. Provocation? I'd say yes.

We chose sides in a civil war in Korea and Vietnam.

Nonsense.. Korea was divided into occupation zones.
This was the first proxy war in the cold war.
Civil war had little to do with it.

Once again you need to get your facts straight.

We were administering (responsible for) South Korea after WWII. Russia
was administering (responsible for) North Korea. North Korea attacked
South Korea. Both Korean leaders wanted to rejoin the halves of their
country under their forms of government. Essentially a civil war. Yes,
there were both Cold War and anti-Communism components. We did not,
however, 'invade' unprovoked.

Mr. Middius brought up the Mexican War. Valid, but if you remember, my
point was that when we were, or since we have been, the biggest,
baddest military on Earth we have not attacked a sovereign nation
unprovoked. I stand by that statement.

Going back that far, BTW, I am also not very proud of the US Army's
role against the Native Americans during the mid-to-late 1800s.

It would appear my facts are straighter than you thought. Certainly far
straighter than yours.

You're very good at dissembling the argument to the smallest possible
exception, ignoring the overall point, and then declaring the points
invalid. Sorry, but that's just plain old stupidity.

I'M stupid because YOU can't support your arguments with facts.

As you said, you're stupid. Research your facts better.

We paid them [France] back 100 fold in 2 world wars.

Actually, we entered WWI very late. The Brits and the French had been
fighting for over three years before we got there (with any numbers) in
the summer of 1918. And if we were honest (and not to downplay our
overall contribution) the Russians had far more to do with European
victory in WWII than we did. Unfortunately for accurate history, their
huge contribution was probably downplayed due to the Cold War. They'd
been fighting for well over a year before we became involved in the
war, and for over four by the time of the Normandy invasion. Patton's
3rd Army raced through an empty shell that was basically stripped to
face the Russian onslaught. Germans surrendered in huge numbers to us
rather than to the Russians, who showed far less mercy to the captives.

So we paid the French back in WWII. They owe us nothing, and we owe
them nothing. Sounds about right. So why whine about their refusal to
do our (actually bushie's) bidding?

Say, speaking of getting facts straight, shall we start a separate
thread on the Gulf of Tonkin?;-)

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 11:09 am
Email: "ScottW"

You're probably aware of 'measured response.' After all, you seem to be
somewhat of a military expert, yes?

I'm also aware of impotent response as demonstrated by Clinton.

Exactly what would you have done differently?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 20 2006 4:14 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Using your logic, this applies to Germany in WWII.

Did we have provocation? I think Germany declared war
first so I would say yes.

My point exactly: we were provoked. I'm talking unprovoked invasion, as
I have been all along. We didn't do it. I don't like the fact that we
now have.

Quit spinning. I provided enough examples to show that Iraq isn't the
first time. Heres a rather liberal list US troop actions going back over
100 years.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

You now have a lot of homework to do.

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Tues, Feb 21 2006 12:53 am
Email: "ScottW"

Quit spinning. I provided enough examples to show that Iraq isn't the
first time. Heres a rather liberal list US troop actions going back over
100 years.

Spinning? Here is *exactly* what I said:

"Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more."

Now, if you go back to any time prior to WWII, we most assuredly did
*not* have the "biggest,
baddest military on Earth." So I made a claim, stand by it, prove that
you're wrong, and *I'm* the one spinning? LOL!

I gave you Grenada. I had quite frankly forgotten about that, and
admitted as much. Further, in an effort at honest discourse *I* was the
one that brought it up. That's the only 'invasion' mentioned in your
list since WWII. Name one other nation that we have invaded without
provocation since the US became the "biggest, baddest military on
Earth."

Even the URL you give says 'interventions' and not 'invasions.' I see
no unprovoked 'invasion' on your list, and certainly none since 1930,
when we had an outdated, understrength, under-equipped military by any
measure. We have been a world military power since WWII.

The following is a partial list of U.S. military *interventions* from
1890 to 1999.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

You now have a lot of homework to do.

Not really.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: ScottW
Date: Tues, Feb 21 2006 12:53 am
Email: "ScottW"

Quit spinning. I provided enough examples to show that Iraq isn't the
first time. Heres a rather liberal list US troop actions going back over
100 years.

Spinning? Here is *exactly* what I said:

"Another big reason was that I liked the fact that we had the biggest,
baddest military on Earth (still do) and we had still never invaded a
sovereign nation without provocation. That's not true any more."

Now, if you go back to any time prior to WWII, we most assuredly did
*not* have the "biggest,
baddest military on Earth." So I made a claim, stand by it, prove that
you're wrong, and *I'm* the one spinning? LOL!

I gave you Grenada. I had quite frankly forgotten about that, and
admitted as much.

Let me get this straight. You made a claim...you stand by your
claim,
you proved I am wrong disputing your claim,
but you give me Grenada. Ok.


Further, in an effort at honest discourse *I* was the
one that brought it up. That's the only 'invasion' mentioned in your
list since WWII. Name one other nation that we have invaded without
provocation since the US became the "biggest, baddest military on
Earth."

Why just on earth.. clearly many of out incursions were western
hemisphere (our backyard) actions and we were clearly the biggest and
baddest in the western hemisphere since long before WWII. In fact...
due to the difficulties in projecting power...one could easily argue
that we were the biggest and baddest in the western hemisphere of all
the countries on earth since before WWI.

We also clearly differ on the meaning of provocation.
I think Saddam provided plenty of provocation.


Even the URL you give says 'interventions' and not 'invasions.'

Semantics.... now you must define invasion for us.
Any military incursion inside their borders? How about air space?

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Tues, Feb 21 2006 12:05 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Semantics.... now you must define invasion for us.
Any military incursion inside their borders? How about air space?

Actually, I do not have to define anything for 'us.' In fact, there is
nothing that I 'must' do for you, 'us' or anybody else.

If you want to, why don't you define 'invasion' for 'us'?

Scott, without getting lost in minutiae and arguing about whatever
happened on April 3rd 1946 at 12:00, as is the typical response to any
claim or argument made on r.a.o that I've seen, and which is also the
track you are very much trying to go down here, the point is this:

Unlike the Roman, Macedonians, Greeks, Norse, Spanish, British, French,
Germans, or any other 'empire' down throught the ages, we have not,
until now, tried to invade other nation-states to militarily conquer
other lands to make them bend to our will. We changed from the War
Department to the Department of Defense. That, to me, was more than
just a symbolic name change. We should change it back.

You, on the other hand, want to claim that actions such as this:

NICARAGUA
1981-90
Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants
harbor mines against revolution.

are exactly the same. I disagree.

You believe whatever you wish. I find this much more interesting than
debating minutiae with you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11467986/

Particularly this quote:

At any rate, the school isn't just about operating in Iraq, Short said,
but about preparing officers for the rest of their careers. "I think
*we're going to be in more of these wars*," he said. (Emphasis mine.)

So my point, before it gets lost in a boring (I should say *more*
boring) debate with you about what constitutes an invasion vs. another
operation in your mind, is this: we have, as a nation and a military,
turned a corner that I disagree with. That was what I said. That was
what I meant. That was, in part, why I chose to retire when I did. And
I stand by that statement.

On the bright side, another point that I've made is that the military
is very ill-suited to these missions. It appears that, after three
years, they're starting to figure that out. Unfortunately, as the
article says, in order to do the job right, we have to leave our bases.
That is without question true, but that also exposes the troops to
higher levels of danger.

So Scott, you go on your merry little way and argue that the US has
acted exactly the same as the previous empire-building nations that
have had the biggest, baddest militaries on Earth have acted down
through history. I don't think that we have in the past. I think we are
starting to now. You disagree. I predict the results will be the same
for us. You probably think that we will somehow get a different result
from what history has shown, just as rummy thinks that new weapons mean
the underlying concepts of warfare have changed.

Whatever.

Now, you get the final word, and you can even declare 'victory' if you
want to. How's that for being agreeable?