>>> Are you aware that to fight an ideal is ludicrous ?? That to war against >>> one simply imbeds it and disperses that ideal to others... have you NEVER >>> read a history book ??
Then WWII was not fought against the ideas of Naziism??? That notion is new to most historians... On Feb 25, 4:07 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you aware that to fight an ideal is ludicrous ?? That to war > against one simply imbeds it and disperses that ideal to others... > have you NEVER read a history book ?? Told a teenager he/she can not > do something ?? There has been no "battle" won. Since Iraq started > there has been a huge change. Because of the US methodology in using > guns against ideals it is no longer a gender specific fight. The women > were holding down a lot of men from joining the Fanatic front, now > they are instead backing the men to join and doing so themselves. > GREAT WIN !!!! you have DOUBLED the pool from which they draw their > backers and fighters. > > There are so many facets to this thing that you have NO clue about > because you have NO clue as to their culture and traditions. Most of > what they are doing and HOW they do it goes way beyond Mohhamed and > his (like the bibles) erroneous teachings. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> I am NOT the one that used the word "won" when dealing with Iraq > > > Yes we won in Iraq, which is but one battlefield in the broader WOT > > which include the battlefields of Afghanistan/Pakistan... Your straw- > > man is demanding the winning/won in Iraq equates to a won in the > > WOT... And that assumption is false... > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
