Re: OT-Re: Another Horizon/Athearn Stupidhead move.

LOL! and LOL again!

Bush has really got egg on his face on the Iraq deal. And GW does not like egg on his face. Just idly speculating if he (or his people) might not just manufacture some WMDs or evidence. Naw, probably not but what the heck... it's out.

Last February 5th, Collin Powell stated to the UN "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence of hidden Iraqi WMDs as a reason to declare immediate war. Guess he must not have been speaking for the Bush administration after all. Hmm! Maybe Horizon bought them all from Sadam in order to be the exclusive dealer of WMD worldwide??? "Strange but true" LOL!

And anyone who didn't believe it was called a traitor by the chickenhawk cabal.

Say "Hello, buddy" to Rathburne and Epperson and the rest of your like. I'll waste no more time on your puerile rantings.

Richard Albuquerque

well you may be that who knows but you were right on on the issues.

Thanks Richard,

But for the record, the second part is and shall remain a joke. Happy to see you caught it. A "juvenile" ranting hey! LOL! Someone obviously doesn't read or listen to the news do they.

The first part is true. I quoted Collen Powel on his statement to the UN last February and IF you would monitor current events in the White House you would have known that on Friday morning (yesterday for some of us) C. Rice (National Security Advisor) was dispatched to the three major US television network morning talk shows to engage in some serious damage control over the revelations made by Cheif Weapons Inspector David Kay. Kay also attempted to minimize damage to his ex-boss but was not very successful. Kay is a civilian appointed by Bush. He had no wish to see Bush harmed and was simply trying to point the blame on the Intelligence community where a small part does belong. He was not successful.

I personally admire the man GW Bush. But I cannot and do not admire some of his administrations Post 9/11 actions. How much of that was him and how much of that was his advisors doings I have no idea and that part is really not that important. He is in command. As the commander-in-chief the buck shall always stop at his door if he has any sense of honor at all. The jury is still out on that one. His father took the heat for his leadership in 1991 and for that he deserves and gets my admiration.

I AM a soldier not some sniveling liberal SOB who runs home to his momma at the first sign of trouble. I spent 12 years in the active Army with 3 of those years in the 1st Battalion, 504th Infantry, 82nd AIRBORNE Division (I was forced out because I fractured two vertebrae on a jump or I would have stayed till retirement. I DID continue 10 more years in the Active ranks with that problem). That Unit for the uninitiated is a front line (and AHEAD of the front lines) combat unit. I have spent an additional 15 years in the Army Reserves training other soldiers and finally working in Army Logistics. There are damn few things in this world that scare me and even fewer things in this world that would cause me to run even if I were scared. I tried pulling every string I could think of to get reassigned to a combat unit in Afghanistan and I was 45 years old at the time. Because I DO think that action was justified.

But SIR! I am not stupid! Nor am I all that uninformed! God gave me the ability to read and see. God has also seen fit in providing me the ability to reason out what I have read and seen. Critical thinking is a study area sadly lacking in this country these days. I need look no farther than some of the posts on this list in verification. Also, I am a student of history. And historically (since even before the founding of our nation) we as a proud nation and people have responded to, persevered, overcome, and even annihilated any and all those who would do our nation or way of life harm. We have a 100% perfect track record in responding and winning once we are attacked.

Likewise historically, we as a nation and people have a really miserable track record once we decide to act the role of an aggressor nation. No matter what the reasons for starting were. We have ultimately failed in almost each and every action undertaken as an aggressor. I have long pondered the true reasons why this occurs when other countries at first glance do so well in the aftermath of their aggression. I have come somewhat to the reluctant conclusion that it is because we are basically a capitalist society (not the same label as in the communist vs. capitalist hate speeches). Our civilian leadership decisions and actions tend to be based on economic viability rather than on true power and territory acquisitioning. The USSR was all about state ownership. All aggressive actions were to the benefit (or not) of the state not individuals or companies. Frankly, it never mattered who was in the White House (Bush or Gore) as the end result of our actions would have been the same should a hypothetical Gore have been president at 9/11 and chosen Bush's political solutions or been like it turned out... with the Bush administration. Sorry Bush haters and lovers... it's not about Bush. He is the just the person who happens to occupy the office today.

I can think of at least two other countries that currently have far-far surpassed Iraq and Sadam in the amount of opposition exterminated, repression of the populace, and intolerance of outside UN political intervention or advice. One of these is well known for its sales of WMD delivery systems and other military hardware. Both problem areas are far more deadly than Iraq could be in some tens of years. However there are absolutely no economic incentives for aggressing either of these countries as there was with Iraq.

You may also wish to question why the disposing of Sadam should be so much more important than the capture or elimination of Osama Bin Laden. What Osama did to this country was every bit as reprehensible as what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt led this country to victory over Japan (well until the last two months or so due to his death) without wavering from his goal. Why would the Bush administration simply stop after just throwing out the Taliban in Afghanistan?

I know, I know, you say we are still "looking" for Osama. Are we really? There are 14,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan. That is less than ONE Infantry division in total manpower. How many brigades of Infantry are included in that number? I am not sure but I know The 1st Brigade, 82nd Abn Div. (3500 troops) I served under has elements there. I have no idea of the remaining

10,500 troops combat make up. In war a Brigade could reasonably be expected to fight and secure 50-100 square miles or so at a time. As an occupying force, it could monitor and secure maybe 500-1000 square miles of territory. At last check Afghanistan has over 268,000 square miles of countryside. And just 14,000 troops to watch it and to organize further combat action (aka: the Spring Offensive) action.

Now let's compare Iraq, There are some 130,000 US soldiers in Iraq. There are an equivalent 4.3 Infantry divisions and one Armored Division in total manpower. The remaining combat and occupation figures should remain similarly constant. At last check Iraq had just a little less than 166,000 square miles of area.

So we have each soldier responsible for 19 square miles of countryside in Afghanistan. Their buddy in Iraq is only responsible for about 1.3 square miles of area. So which person/country are we really the most interested in? So what interest do we really have in capturing Osama? Why did an American leader not follow up when his original military action failed in his stated objective? And finally, what was so all important about Sadam and Iraq? Where is the "clear and present danger" promised so forcefully by this administration? Perhaps the most important rhetorical question will become, how soon will the general American population demand an exit of our forces from Iraq? Bush is already cutting corners to speed up a so called transfer of power ahead of the fall Presidential elections. Cutting corners gets soldiers killed. The greater the numbers of soldiers killed, the greater the cry will become at home to exit the mess.

The Bush administration currently are wrapping themselves in the flag and playing against all of our fears. No matter how irrational the fears are. Since 9/11, the Bush administration has stated that you are un-American at best, a traitor at the worst, if you disagree with their goals. Somewhat the same think our beloved Sen. Joe McCarthy said in the 1950s. It's too bad more of you did not live in those times and had been subject to the political maneuverings of time. You would most certainly have a different outlook now I would imagine. I truly loved the Bush narration of the "estimated" pound-per-pound danger of the Iraqi Chemical/Biological weapons and how they could hurt us way over here. I truly laughed. He did however neglect to tell the population "the REST of the story." It is a lot more difficult to deliver and the effects are a lot more unpredictable than he would have you imagine. But hey! It's SCARY!

In the military we have no real way to protest our leadership's actions. We do not enjoy the same constitutional protections as you do. By law we are not able to disparage our Commander in Chief. And the commanders on the ground select who will and will not be allowed to talk publicly with the media. So you have heard relatively little in the way of discontented soldiers. They are out there and the Army leadership does worry about them. I was one of the ones worried over.

I spent a total of 27 years in federal service. I attempted to join the fight against Osama. I was denied because I was assigned to a Tier 1B unit (combat units are all Tier 1A). Once 9/11 hit we were locked in. In the run up to the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq the military was under Stop Loss. Means no retirements or transfers. The latest Stop Loss ended last June and I transferred to the Retired Reserve in September. For all intents and purposes I am retired. It was the only protest I could make against our action in Iraq. You may accept the Presidents reasons for war in Iraq, You may not. But for sure I did not accept the reasons given. If Mr. Rathburne and Mr. Epperson are of like or similar mind on this issue I would be happy to shake their hands. Provided there is a rational thought process behind it. Emotion or Emotional "ranting" are fine and dandy on a newsgroup. Emotions or Emotional "ranting" on a battlefield can and will get you killed. Personally, I would rather do that here vs. there.

Now, unless you have walked a mile in our shoes (i.e., been there, done that, brought home the t-shirt) you have no basis for commenting one way or the other. There are 291 Million people in the United States as of this year. There are also 291 Million different viewpoints on just about any given subject. What makes you so sure that yours is anymore correct than the person you are speaking with? So what if it is important to you. So what if mine is important to me. What is important is the free and open discussion we all can enjoy. Your statement smacked of social intolerance. Would you wish that on everyone? Be careful what you really wish for as you may get it. But it could come in a form of intolerance that you would not agree with. Fear causes us to do some really stupid things and there are those who would wish to capitalize on our stupidity.

Not only are we far less safe in the long run because of some of our actions following 9/11. Now we also have become less Free in the process. All because of fear. All because of nothing but a few words mentioned by a couple of leaders. Leaders that by self decreed statements had other agendas with their actions.

Man are we so gullible!

Art

Snip

Well said sir.

Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Then you won't mind reading this one for me...

No disrespect intended but could you narrow the question down a bit. Answering Charles point for point could take a few hours. More if you would like proof to back me up with.

I see an interesting article with only a point or two confused. The Racine and Missile issue immediately stand out. The UN was in Iraq up until hours before the war started and prior to Kay being resent by Bush to Iraq following the war. The missile issue was discovered and dealt with at that time.

The missiles in question were the Al Samoud 2 variant and the extend range was estimated to be 7% to no more than 20% over the 150km UN imposed limit. That issue had always been in contention from its finding as the supposed violation was based solely on a computer generated model. The Iraqi government complained but went ahead and gave the missiles to the Inspectors for destruction. This was in Feb. 2003. Personally I would really suspect the computer findings. The model was completed using on-site software and I really could not see how it could ever factor in the Al Samoud 2's tendency to break apart in flight, erratic flight, and otherwise unreliable. This was because the Iraqis did not do a very good job in the redesign of the payload capacities vs. change in CG.

I would be more than happy to continue this conversation but it needs to go offline. The above email address is a good one to contact me on. I got a little smarter and quit using my main email account to post to newsgroups. Over a thousand spams and counting since my original post on Jan 6. Thanks

Art

It probably won't matter to the sniveling NeoCon chickenhawk REMFs. Disagree with their plans and you're a traitor (see the NeoCon wanker "action figure" [!!] on sale below the Krauthammer column ref'd.)

You may remember Kevin Philips - a Nixon White House staffer and author of "The Emerging Republican Majority" - and still a Republican.* But not a NeoCon nor a defender of the entitlement program that dare not speak its name (the one Shrub benefitted from). He's an excellent author. Do take a look at his newest book "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush"

Dubya is not a man worthy of your respect. Just examine his record - not his words - on veterans' benefits. Look at what he recently did to combat pay for our folks in Iraq. Compare that to the benefits he's been dependent on his entire life.

• but probably the kind that the John Birchers (the first impetus in my leaving the Republican party after voting for Goldwater in '64) used to call "commie dupes" - which is what they called Eisenhower.

Well, they sure will not be able to say I didn't practice what I preached will they.

I seem to remember the name but am not sure if I had read any of the books or not. I will see if our local B & N has copies. Thank you for the info.

He is a man of firm convictions, whether or not you and I will agree with him or not (and I certainly do not), his stands are genuine. I voted Regan both times as well as GB Senior. However I did not vote for Bush Jr. I thought and still think that he is a dangerous man both by his words and beliefs. Without going into either politics or his military leadership ability, I would put his convictions on par with George Patton's. Patton had he not been killed in the accident might well have been a republican US President in the 1950s. The McCarthy - Patton solution would have been frightening indeed and quite possible the extra catalyst needed for nuclear war.

I have been out of the loop on Pay. What is the White House up to on that? Congress sets the pay as a rule.

Art

Up your ass Richard, there were no WMD's and this was an immoral war. Bush lied and should be impeached. Just ask Mark Newton, he agrees with whatever I say. Jerry

What I heard was that DoD (remember where the buck stops from there) wanted to cut some costs by eliminating $150 a month in combat pay for the soldiers in Iraq, and also tried to eliminate another $75 a month family allowance for troops separated from spouses or children. When Congress heard of that they scotched it for this year. But DoD promised to propose the combat pay cut next year.

I've also heard reports that commanders in Iraq are stymied from getting medals and awards approved because "the combat is over". Yeah, Shrub hitched a ride in an old anti-sub plane (not a fighter as so many ignorant news agency types said, probably parroting the crap fed them in White House press releases) and declared "mission accomplished". Everybody stop dying, y'all.

Well, back to reading "The Cousins' Wars", an interesting historical thesis by Phillips on Britain and the US, and the civil wars: the revolution that Cromwell came to head, the American revolution, and the American civil war.

Phillips is an interesting case of a Republican who believes in economic justice - and believes that this country is drifting dangerously in the wrong direction.

Not my take on him, obviously. He just looks and sounds shifty to me.

Actually, Jerry I do NOT agree with you on most topics, but this once I DO agree with you. It was my opinion right from the start that all little Bush wanted was to finish what Pappy Bush started.

Art,

I may not see eye to eye with everything you wrote but as an American citizen I respect and greatly appreciate your service to our country.

I have a very high regard for our military. It breaks my heart everytime I hear about our soldiers getting killed anywhere not just in Iraq or Afghanistan not only because they lost their lives but because I know somewhere there are families bracing for the worst news about their loved ones and some will get that terrible news.

Jim

I do think Bush believes in the rightness of his policies. After all, he's "born again" and gets them direct from God :-).

But he knows they won't go over with most voters so he cloaks them in lies. That's why he appears "shifty".

BTW, there's a new book out called "The Lies of George Bush", I forget the author. And yes, he does point out that ALL politicians lie, regardless of party. He just thinks King George is the new champion :-).

Jim, Thank you,

I do not expect everyone to agree, in fact I would sincerly hope they not agree on everything otherwise we loose our own indivuality. I'll leave that for the Jim Jone's and David Koresh's of this world . My own thoughts are based solely on my own experiences. When younger I too thought of myself as a 'hawk." My outloook started changing bit by bit about the time I saw my first face half blown off... and we were not even at war at the time.

That has always been and always will be a part of war. Only war prevention can stop this event. Some war is unavoidable and is a just cause or action besed on prior events. Some wars waged based upon greed or someones or groups idea of "Nation Building" we might have to draw the line on.

Art

See there can be middle ground. Even amongst enemies! LOL and

Take care guys.

And rushing into it without thinking out all the ramifications and without planning for what to do after the inevitable fall of Bagdad is only to be expected: after all, he just slid into a whole series of "jobs" in the awl bidness with little or no actual qualification beyond his entitlement program status and he got paid a lot of money for it.