>>> So let me get this straight a BATTLE has been won, territory gained. That does NOT equate to "winning" when speaking of a "war".
Not unlike winning the Battle of the Bulge... And it is part and partial of winning a war... There is a difference between winning and WON... You wish to say Bush has not WON the WOT... BUsh left office WINNING the WOT... On Feb 24, 10:53 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:38 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 1) you claimed "First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? > > Robert Gates who was Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... > > > My reply "Bush won the then central front in Iraq... The Central > > front has moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... > > AQ went to Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... Now it > > returned back to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan > > where government rarely existed for the last 500 years... > > So let me get this straight a BATTLE has been won, territory gained. > That does NOT equate to "winning" when speaking of a "war". > > > > > 2) you claimed "Third I was under the impression that this was a "war > > on terror". Your claim is is to insinuate and flat out state that > > there are no more terrorists... > > > Again my reply "The Central front has moved back to the Afghani-Paki > > border --AS IT HAD TO DO." That is to say stateless terrorism is just > > that, stateless and mobile and that in all wars central fronts change > > as what happened in this war... > > again you admit there is no victory. > > > > > 3) You claimed "Last if the war was "won" I would like a date/link for > > that formal expression and an explanation in explicit and coherent > > terms the need for continued US occupation. > > I am NOT the one that used the word "won" when dealing with Iraq who > had absolutely NO terrorist problem to begin with, that would be you. > How can you "win" a situation you created in its entirety ?? As far as > partisan battlefields I have been present on several on three > different continents and involved in the solution of those > conflicts... just where do you draw YOUR purported expertise > from??....... > > especially your claim that Iraq was somehow used to draw AQ out and > onto a battlefield so they could be defeated by conventional > forces..... Show me ANY proof of this as a position prior to the > conflict.... It is PURE revisionism trying to make the outcome meet > made up stories. > > Your explanations are as dearly and sorely lacking as your revisionist > scheme to explain an entirely illegal enterprise that cost more than > the Serb/Bosnia war that effected far more people, far more territory > and resulted in absolute and lasting Republics being formed all under > existing international covenant. The "proof" that these two conflicts > as far as the vested combatants is as non-existant as your basis for > your position. > > > > > > > It is clear that you are looking to define war in terms of formalized > > nation-state to nation-state which have more structured beginnings and > > endings... This logic is a straw-man when dealing with wars that > > involve non state actors (even those backed by existing states)... > > In these war declarations are often attacks as 9/11 and peace treaties > > are the decline and cessation of abnormal violence, that is to say > > actions rather than scraps of paper... It is also clear, in how I > > have written on the WOT, that I am not bound by your prejudice that > > all wars, including "unconventional wars" must have formal > > declarations of war and peace... Throughout history unconventional > > war normal do not have such definative starting and ending points as > > most historians known... > > > So yes, I did respond directly to you points... One is entitled to > > opinion but not facts... > > > On Feb 23, 5:42 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> and not a single point countered... not a single question answered... > > >> On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Bush won the then central front in Iraq... The Central front has > >> > moved back to the Afghani-Paki border --AS IT HAD TO DO... AQ went to > >> > Iraq and made it the central front and LOST... Now it returned back > >> > to the tribal areas of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan where government > >> > rarely existed for the last 500 years... > > >> > On Feb 22, 1:20 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Lew, > > >> > > First didn't "Bushs' War" include Afghanistan ?? Robert Gates who was > >> > > Bushs' SecDef says there is NO way to win.... > > >> > > Second I would like a reliable/cerdible source quote to add any > >> > > credence that Obama or any one else for that matter is in favor of any > >> > > serviceman or woman being killed or an admission that is solely YOUR > >> > > opinion. > > >> > > Third I was under the impression that this was a "war on terror". Your > >> > > claim is is to insinuate and flat out state that there are no more > >> > > terrorists.... please explain your statement in connection with the > >> > > Bush claim (and only claim) throughout that this is a "war on terror". > > >> > > Last if the war was "won" I would like a date/link for that formal > >> > > expression and an explanation in explicit and coherent terms the need > >> > > for continued US occupation. > > >> > > Failing in your ability to do the above a simple statement covering > >> > > your bias and lack of situational grasp will suffice. > > >> > > On Feb 22, 11:52 am, lew <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > Republicans haven't reached the point of Democrat desperation a > >> > > > couple > >> > > > of years ago when DEMOCRATS cheered each WOUNDED and each DEAD > >> > > > military report as a victory to defeat the hated George W. Bush. > > >> > > > Republicans can NEVER stoop so low as to promote a losing strategy > >> > > > (Vote against the Surge) just to attain more Ameican woundings and > >> > > > deaths to gain politically. > > >> > > > Our own presidemt, Barack Obama, voted against the surge because he > >> > > > knew that could/would lead to more woundings and deaths. > > >> > > > BUSH WON IN IRAQ. Democrats lovingly referred to Iraq as "Bush's > >> > > > War." > > >> > > > BUSH WON BUSH'S WAR. > > >> > > > On Feb 22, 6:53 am, VT Sean Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > Why do Republicans Desperately need President Obama > >> > > > > and the Democrat controlled Congress to fail? > > >> > > > > Sean Lewis > >> > > > > February 22, 2009 > > >> > > > > President Obama has been President for barely > >> > > > > a month. > > >> > > > > He is facing a Crisis equal if not greater that the > >> > > > > Crisis Bush faced after 9/11. > > >> > > > > After 9/11 the country unified behind President Bush > >> > > > > and gave him almost unanimous support to deal > >> > > > > with the crisis. It was about country first, not party. > > >> > > > > Yet even BEFORE President Obama took office > >> > > > > Republicans, their surrogates and the press have > >> > > > > ridiculed and second guessed EVERYTHING > >> > > > > President Obama has done. > > >> > > > > President Obama has asked for input from all corners because > >> > > > > he NEEDS the help of ALL AMERICANS to deal with > >> > > > > this crisis the same way ALL AMERICANS rallied behind > >> > > > > President Bush on 9/11. > > >> > > > > Republicans instead of offering their advice and then understanding > >> > > > > that they DO NOT HAVE THE FINAL SAY on what Obama > >> > > > > decides and backing him in a unified effort to deal with the > >> > > > > economic problems are instead ridiculing every decision and > >> > > > > proclaiming failure before the ink is even dry on the BILLS leaving > >> > > > > Committees! > > >> > > > > The Country is facing multiple crisis of which any one could > >> > > > > create disaster for America and Americans. Yet the Republicans > >> > > > > seem hell bent on being obstructionists, and adding to the chaos. > > >> > > > > Why? > > >> > > > > Because the simple fact is that if Obama and the Democratic > >> > > > > lead Congress fixes the many problems left behind by the > >> > > > > Republican controlled Congress and Republican Administration > >> > > > > it will CONFIRM and VALIDATE that the Republicans were > >> > > > > irresponsible and incompetent during the years they had Majority > >> > > > > Control in the Government. > > >> > > > > Republicans are not thinking about the Country or American > >> > > > > people first, they are thinking about the REPUBLICAN party > >> > > > > first! > > >> > > > > The American people said 'we want change' and that change was > >> > > > > to let the Democrats run things. That Republicans no longer get > >> > > > > to demand it is 'their way or the highway', yet this is > >> > > > > still how they are governing. > > >> > > > > The Republicans use the guise of they are the Minority party > >> > > > > and their job is to oppose the Democrats. The problem is the > >> > > > > Country is on the brink of a monumental collapse and this is > >> > > > > a time for cooperation, NOT opposition. So why do it? > > >> > > > > Because for the Republican Party to be of consequence again > >> > > > > in the future, the Republican party needs the President and the > >> > > > > Democratic controlled Congress to fail. If the Democrats do fail, > >> > > > > then the Republicans can say " see this wasn't our fault NO ONE > >> > > > > could have prevented this from happening. > > >> > > > > However if President Obama and the Democratically controlled > >> > > > > Congress > >> > > > > succeeds, it only emphasises that not only did the Republicans not > >> > > > > acknowledge the crisis as they arose but even after they finally > >> > > > > admitted the problem they did nothing to remedy the problem either > >> > > > > through > >> > > > > ignorance or incompetence. > > >> > > > > So do not be fooled by the insincere arguments that Republicans > >> > > > > are trying to be bipartisan and want to help. They have an agenda, > >> > > > > and that agenda is for the failure of the Democrats, even if it > >> > > > > destroys the Country in the process.- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > - Show quoted text - > > >> -- > >> Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > -- > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
