No one would fight a war if ideals didn't justify it. On Feb 26, 2:42�pm, jgg1000a <[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 ?? > > 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 > > ... > > read more �- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
