For every question, there's an answer -- and you'll find it here!


Printer-friendly copy
Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #129548
View in linear mode

Subject: "A Failure in Generalship" Previous topic | Next topic
baloSat Apr-28-07 04:45 PM
Charter member
2264 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"A Failure in Generalship"


          

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

Just a small taste follows.

"For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war".


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Replies to this topic
Subject Author Message Date ID
RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 28th 2007
1
RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 28th 2007
2
RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 28th 2007
3
RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 28th 2007
4
      RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 28th 2007
5
      RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
6
      RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
8
           RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
9
                RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
10
                     RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
18
                          RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
21
      RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
7
           RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
11
                RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
12
                RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
13
                RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
14
                     RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
15
                     RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 29th 2007
16
                          RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
17
                               RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
19
                                    RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
22
                                         RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
39
                                              RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
40
                                                   RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 03rd 2007
51
                                                        RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 03rd 2007
52
                                                             RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 03rd 2007
53
                                                                  RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 03rd 2007
54
                RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
20
                     RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
23
                     RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
28
                     RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
24
                          RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
25
                          RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
26
                          RE: A Failure in Generalship
Apr 30th 2007
27
                          RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
29
                               RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
30
                               RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
31
                               RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
32
                               RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
33
                               RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
34
                                    RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
35
                                    RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
37
                                         RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
38
                               RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 01st 2007
36
                                    RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
41
                                         RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
42
                                              RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
43
                                                   RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
44
                                                   RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
48
                                                   RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
45
                                                        RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
46
                                                        RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
47
                                                        RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
50
                                                        RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 03rd 2007
55
                                                             RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 03rd 2007
56
                                                             RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
57
                                                                  RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
58
                                                                       RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
59
                                                                       RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
61
                                                                            RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
62
                                                                       RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
60
                                                                            RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
63
                                                                            RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
65
                                                                            RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
66
                                                                                 RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 05th 2007
67
                                                                            RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 04th 2007
64
                                                        RE: A Failure in Generalship
May 02nd 2007
49

ShellySat Apr-28-07 05:36 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#1. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to balo (Reply # 0)


  

          

Interesting article, but I am not sure I can agree entirely in the case of Iraq.

We had generals who raised warnings, they quickly found themselves "retired". The general who learned the lessons of Viet Nam betrayed his own doctrine to appease an administration he was part of as Secretary of State, to his regret and shame.

The administration for its own political reasons went general shopping until they found some who would go along with them, even against their own beliefs, to save their precious positions. It came to the point where only retired generals dared to oppose a President and Secretary of Defense deluded by their messianic beliefs in their own infallibility, and determined to press a war they wanted.

Today, despite the glaring policy errors committed, he rails against the first attempts to set things right by the opposition party, finally in the majority in congress, And has the gall to accuse them of trying to micro-manage and tell the generals how to run the war, when that is exactly what he and his minions have been doing from the beginning to get us into this mess! We won this war in days when Saddam fell, and instead of getting out then, we have been losing lives and treasure ever since fighting a hopeless insurgency we largely created.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

pakoSat Apr-28-07 05:39 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#2. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to balo (Reply # 0)


          



And why is that? We are divided. One party is fighting to win, the other is fighting for us to loose.

Thank your far left wing democratic idiots for that!!


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
ShellySat Apr-28-07 05:47 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#3. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 2)


  

          

None are so blind as those who will not see.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

    
ShellySat Apr-28-07 08:06 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#4. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 2)


  

          

Retired Gen.: Bush Should Sign Iraq Bill

Apr 28, 11:12 AM (ET)

By KASIE HUNT

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said Saturday.

"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.

The general accused Bush of squandering U.S. lives and helping Iran and al-Qaida when he invaded Iraq.

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies."

Odom said he doesn't favor congressional involvement in the execution of foreign and military policy, but argued that Bush had been derelict in his responsibilities. This week Congress passed an Iraq war spending bill that would require Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Oct. 1.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
ablibSat Apr-28-07 08:50 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#5. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 4)


  

          

He won't sign it.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
Bob HSun Apr-29-07 01:33 AM
Charter member
10682 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#6. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 4)


  

          

What else would you expect from a Democrat?



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
ShellySun Apr-29-07 03:17 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#8. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Bob H (Reply # 6)


  

          

Try reading it again. He specifically stated he has never been a Democrat non a Republican, thus an Independent.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
Bob HSun Apr-29-07 03:24 PM
Charter member
10682 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#9. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 8)


  

          

He was giving the Democratic reply to President's Saturday radio message.

Quote:
"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
ShellySun Apr-29-07 03:45 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#10. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Bob H (Reply # 9)


  

          

Quote:
Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
Bob HMon Apr-30-07 01:33 AM
Charter member
10682 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#18. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 10)


  

          

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.........



  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
ShellyMon Apr-30-07 02:21 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#21. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Bob H (Reply # 18)


  

          

That duck was head of the NSA under the Reagan Administration. Apearently Reagan considered him a good conservative Republican quacker.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

        
81 NewbeeSun Apr-29-07 05:10 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#7. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 4)


  

          

We had trouble absorbing the folks from Vietnam.Now we will have another influx of people from Iraq(Those with purple fingers who sided with us)and another language to print our ballots in.I am afraid that our coming home from Iraq will be even more horrendous than our retreat from Vietnam.I hope some one of the congessmen (or Senator Reid )who are pushing for our return has a plan to handle the turmoil.Just let it happen and blame Bush is my expectation

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

            
jazz4freeSun Apr-29-07 04:15 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#11. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 7)


  

          

Never fear, John, America, as always, will do just fine. You'll get the cream of the crop -- the professionals who'll be able to afford the trans-continental air fare. They'll bring their resources and skills with them. The other poor slobs will either have to walk or hitch a ride into Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. They are already doing just that by the hundreds of thousands.

Imagine, fleeing a fine new democracy like Iraq. What's wrong with those people? Don't they realize their village has to be destroyed in order to save it? Can't they suck it up?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
ShellySun Apr-29-07 05:01 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#12. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 11)


  

          

It will be much worse. The real target of AlQuida and the Shiites is Saudi Arabia. The inevitable fall of Iraq will further destabilize the Arab world. If the Saudi regime falls, our enemies will have a strangle hold on the worlds oil supply. This would force the US for strategic reasons to intervene on behalf of the Saudis. In the short term you can count on oil going to between $100 to $130, or higher, a barrel, and on gas going to between $6.00 to $10.00 a gallon. This will probably trigger a world wide recession. Have a nice day.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
jazz4freeSun Apr-29-07 05:14 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#13. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 12)


  

          

Somewhat related:

The New York Times
April 29, 2007
A Saudi Prince Tied to Bush Is Sounding Off-Key
By HELENE COOPER and JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, April 28 — No foreign diplomat has been closer or had more access to President Bush, his family and his administration than the magnetic and fabulously wealthy Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia.

Prince Bandar has mentored Mr. Bush and his father through three wars and the broader campaign against terrorism, reliably delivering — sometimes in the Oval Office — his nation’s support for crucial Middle East initiatives dependent on the regional legitimacy the Saudis could bring, as well as timely warnings of Saudi regional priorities that might put it into apparent conflict with the United States. Even after his 22-year term as Saudi ambassador ended in 2005, he still seemed the insider’s insider. But now, current and former Bush administration officials are wondering if the longtime reliance on him has begun to outlive its usefulness.

Bush administration officials have been scratching their heads over steps taken by Prince Bandar’s uncle, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, that have surprised them by going against the American playbook, after receiving assurances to the contrary from Prince Bandar during secret trips he made to Washington.

For instance, in February, King Abdullah effectively torpedoed plans by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a high-profile peace summit meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, by brokering a power-sharing agreement with Mr. Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas that did not require Hamas to recognize Israel or forswear violence. The Americans had believed, after discussions with Prince Bandar, that the Saudis were on board with the strategy of isolating Hamas.

American officials also believed, again after speaking with Prince Bandar, that the Saudis might agree to direct engagement with Israel as part of a broad American plan to jump-start Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. King Abdullah countermanded that plan.

Most bitingly, during a speech before Arab heads of state in Riyadh three weeks ago, the king condemned the American invasion of Iraq as “an illegal foreign occupation.” The Bush administration, caught off guard, was infuriated, and administration officials have found Prince Bandar hard to reach since.

Since the Iraq war and the attendant plummeting of America’s image in the Muslim world, King Abdullah has been striving to set a more independent and less pro-American course, American and Arab officials said. And that has steered America’s relationship with its staunchest Arab ally into uncharted waters. Prince Bandar, they say, may no longer be able to serve as an unerring beacon of Saudi intent.

“The problem is that Bandar has been pursuing a policy that was music to the ears of the Bush administration, but was not what King Abdullah had in mind at all,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel who is now head of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

Of course it is ultimately the king — and not the prince — who makes the final call on policy. More than a dozen associates of Prince Bandar, including personal friends and Saudi officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that if his counsel has led to the recent misunderstandings, it is due to his longtime penchant for leaving room in his dispatches for friends to hear what they want to hear. That approach, they said, is catching up to the prince as new tensions emerge between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Bandar, son of one of the powerful seven sons born to the favorite wife of Saudi Arabia’s founding king, “needs to personally regroup and figure out how to put Humpty Dumpty together again,” one associate said.

Robert Jordan, a former Bush administration ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said the Saudis’ mixed signals have come at a time when King Abdullah — who has ruled the country since 1995 but became king only in 2005 after the death of his brother, Fahd — has said he does not want to go down in history as Mr. Bush’s Arab Tony Blair. “I think he feels the need as a kind of emerging leader of the Arab world right now to maintain a distance,” he said.

Mr. Jordan said that although the United States and Saudi Arabia “have different views on how to get there,” the countries still share the same long-term goals for the region and remain at heart strong allies.

An administration spokesman, Gordon D. Johndroe, said none of the current issues threatened the relationship. “We may have differences on issues now and then,” he said, “but we remain close allies.”

Or, as Saleh al-Kallab, a former minister of information in Jordan, put it, “The relationship between the United States and the Arab regimes is like a Catholic marriage where you can have no divorce.”

But there can be separation. And several associates of Prince Bandar acknowledge that he feels caught between the opposing pressure of the king and that of his close friends in the Bush administration. It is a relationship that Prince Bandar has fostered with great care and attention to detail over the years, making himself practically indispensable to Mr. Bush, his family and his aides.

A few nights after he resigned his post as secretary of state two years ago, Colin L. Powell answered a ring at his front door. Standing outside was Prince Bandar, then Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, with a 1995 Jaguar. Mr. Powell’s wife, Alma, had once mentioned that she missed their 1995 Jaguar, which she and her husband had traded in. Prince Bandar had filed that information away, and presented the Powells that night with an identical, 10-year-old model. The Powells kept the car — a gift that the State Department said was legal — but recently traded it away.

The move was classic Bandar, who has been referred to as Bandar Bush, attending birthday celebrations, sending notes in times of personal crisis and entertaining the Bushes or top administration officials at sumptuous dinner parties at Prince Bandar’s opulent homes in McLean, Va., and Aspen, Colo.

He has invited top officials to pizza and movies out at a mall in suburban Virginia — and then rented out the movie theater (candy served chair-side, in a wagon) and the local Pizza Hut so he and his guests could enjoy themselves in solitude. He is said to feel a strong sense of loyalty toward Mr. Bush’s father dating to the Persian Gulf war, which transferred to the son, whom he counseled about international diplomacy during Mr. Bush’s first campaign for president.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, as the United States learned that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi and focused on the strict Wahhabi school of Islam that informed them and their leader and fellow Saudi, Osama bin Laden, Prince Bandar took a public role in assuring the Americans that his nation would cooperate in investigating and combating anti-American terrorism. He also helped arrange for more than a hundred members of the bin Laden family to be flown out of the United States.

Even since he left the Saudi ambassador’s post in Washington and returned to Saudi Arabia two years ago, Prince Bandar has continued his long courtship, over decades, of the Bush family and Vice President Dick Cheney, flying into Washington for unofficial meetings at the White House. He cruises in without consulting the Saudi Embassy in Washington, where miffed officials have sometimes said they had no idea that he was in town — a perceived slight that contributed to the resignation of his cousin Prince Turki al-Faisal as ambassador to the United States last year. He has been succeeded by Adel al-Jubeir, who is said to have strong support from the king.

Prince Turki was never able to match the role of Prince Bandar, whom the president, vice president and other officials regularly consult on every major Middle East initiative — from the approach to Iran to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to Iraq. Prince Bandar played a crucial role in securing the use of the Prince Sultan Air Base at Al Kharj, roughly 70 miles outside Riyadh, in the attacks led by the United States against Afghanistan and Iraq, despite chafing within his government.

He helped in the negotiations that led to Libya giving up its weapons programs, a victory for Mr. Bush. He pledged to protect the world economy from oil shocks after the invasion, the White House said in 2004, but he denied a report, by the author Bob Woodward, that he had promised to stabilize oil prices in time for Mr. Bush’s re-election campaign.

The cause of the latest friction in the American-Saudi relationship began in 2003, before the invasion of Iraq. The Saudis agreed with the Bush view of Saddam Hussein as a threat, but voiced concern about post-invasion contingencies and the fate of the Sunni minority. When it became clear that the administration was committed to invading Iraq, Prince Bandar took a lead role in negotiations between the Bush administration and Saudi officials over securing bases and staging grounds.

But Saudi frustration has mounted over the past four years, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated. King Abdullah was angry that the Bush administration ignored his advice against de-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi military. He became more frustrated as America’s image in the Muslim world deteriorated, because Saudi Arabia is viewed as a close American ally.

Tensions between King Abdullah and top Bush officials escalated further when Mr. Bush announced a new energy initiative to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil during his 2006 State of the Union address, and announced new initiatives in that direction this year.

Both American and Saudi officials say that King Abdullah clearly values — and uses — Prince Bandar’s close relationship with the White House. And that, associates said, will dictate what Prince Bandar can do.

“Don’t expect the man, because he happens to have an American background, not to play the game for his home team,” said William Simpson, Prince Bandar’s biographer, and a former classmate at the Royal Air Force College in England. “The home team is Saudi Arabia.”

Michael Slackman and Hassan M. Fattah contributed from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Steven R. Weisman from Washington.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
BobGuySun Apr-29-07 06:23 PM
Charter member
2203 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#14. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 12)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
It will be much worse. The real target of AlQuida and the Shiites is Saudi Arabia. The inevitable fall of Iraq will further destabilize the Arab world. If the Saudi regime falls, our enemies will have a strangle hold on the worlds oil supply. This would force the US for strategic reasons to intervene on behalf of the Saudis.

In the short term you can count on oil going to between $100 to $130, or higher, a barrel, and on gas going to between $6.00 to $10.00 a gallon. This will probably trigger a world wide recession. Have a nice day.


It's a lot easier to trigger a world wide recession than leaving Iraq.

And now as Paul Harvey would say for the rest of the story.
Prolonged high oil prices can, in turn, trigger hyper-inflation in the US and a sharp decline of the dollar, a dollar free-fall. The collapse of the dollar will have a serious impact on the entire US economy.

This gets even better. Welcome to the dark ages
One of the pillars propping up US superpower status and worldwide economic dominance is the dollar being accepted as the predominant reserve currency. Central banks of various countries have to stock up dollar reserves because they can only buy their oil requirements and other major commodities in US dollars.

This US economic strength, however, is a double-edged sword and can turn out to be America's economic Achilles heel. A run of the US dollar, for instance, which would cause a dollar free-fall, can bring the entire US economy toppling down.

What is frightening for the US is the fact that China, Russia and Iran possess the power to cause a run on the US dollar and force its collapse.

China is now the biggest holder of foreign exchange reserves in the world, accumulating a trillion dollars by the end of 2006 - a first in world history. A decision by China to shift a major portion of its reserve to the euro or the yen or gold could trigger other central banks to follow suit. Nobody would want to be left behind holding a bagfull of dollars rapidly turning worthless. The herd psychology would be very difficult to control in this case because national economic survival would be at stake.

The International Monetary Fund has warned: "The US is on course to increase its net external liabilities to around 40% of its GDP within the next few years, an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country."

A successful assault on the US dollar will make America crawl on its knees with a minimum of movements. And this assault can come from China, Russia or Iran, or a combination of the three, if they ever decide that they have had enough of US bullying.

So stay or leave Iraq, we can still have a collapse of the dollar bill if the administration plays its cards right.

Have a nice day.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
No_OneSun Apr-29-07 08:41 PM
Charter member
805 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#15. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to BobGuy (Reply # 14)


          

Quote:
One of the pillars propping up US superpower status and worldwide economic dominance is the dollar being accepted as the predominant reserve currency. Central banks of various countries have to stock up dollar reserves because they can only buy their oil requirements and other major commodities in US dollars.

This US economic strength, however, is a double-edged sword and can turn out to be America's economic Achilles heel. A run of the US dollar, for instance, which would cause a dollar free-fall, can bring the entire US economy toppling down.

What is frightening for the US is the fact that China, Russia and Iran possess the power to cause a run on the US dollar and force its collapse.

China is now the biggest holder of foreign exchange reserves in the world, accumulating a trillion dollars by the end of 2006 - a first in world history. A decision by China to shift a major portion of its reserve to the euro or the yen or gold could trigger other central banks to follow suit. Nobody would want to be left behind holding a bagfull of dollars rapidly turning worthless. The herd psychology would be very difficult to control in this case because national economic survival would be at stake.

The International Monetary Fund has warned: "The US is on course to increase its net external liabilities to around 40% of its GDP within the next few years, an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country."





Well copied said.

But it was said even better by the person who originally said it in a column in the Asia Times Online, somebody named Victor N Corpus. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HJ19Ad01.html

Unless you are Victor Corpus, you might try to use at least quotation marks to give the correct attribution of his thoughts and words to him.

Otherwise, by copying and pasting his words verbatim, people might think you know what you are talking about, and that apparently isn't the case.


Attachment #1, (jpg file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
ShellySun Apr-29-07 08:50 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#16. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to BobGuy (Reply # 14)


  

          

The value of the dollar has been in decline since midway in Bushes first term. The value of the dollar has gone from $1.44 against the Pound Sterling in April 1, 2002 to a $1.98 today, a decline of 28%. It took 88 cents to buy a Euro on April 1, 2002, it now costs $1.34, a decline of 34%. You can not fight a war for 4 years and reduce tax income at the same time without finding your currency devalued. Ultimately, you have to pay the piper.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
giseudaMon Apr-30-07 12:57 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#17. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 16)


  

          

The U.S. dollar was in decline long before Bush and the Iraq war. It took a dive in the early 1970's against the Japanese Yen. When did the Vietnam conflict officially start....1964?

Blaming Bush for everything is ridiculous.

Note: I didn't vote for Bush in either election.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
ShellyMon Apr-30-07 02:16 AM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#19. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 17)


  

          

What is ridiculous is you bringing the US dollar value against the Japanese Yen nearly 40 years ago into a discussion of the dollars value in the 21st century. The Euro did not even exist until January 1, 1999.

This is a different world we live in now. At least most of us do.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
giseudaMon Apr-30-07 03:28 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#22. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 19)
Mon Apr-30-07 03:50 AM by giseuda

  

          

Devaluation is devaluation no matter when it happens. The U.S. dollar has never recovered to previous levels in any currency I'm aware of.

All you left-wingers want to do is drag George Bush into it and make it his fault.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
_Chewy_Tue May-01-07 02:24 PM
Member since Dec 07th 2002
5255 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#39. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 22)


  

          

Quote:
QUOTE:
All you left-wingers want to do is drag George Bush into it and make it his fault.


LOL! And who are you? the conservative right? With all the tasteless racial jokes you've posted on here - you're hardly the one to be making a case of biased views. You're pathetic.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
giseudaTue May-01-07 03:45 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#40. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to _Chewy_ (Reply # 39)


  

          

Quote:
You're pathetic


And so are you with your continual insulting remarks. You've returned and haven't changed a bit. Sour Puss as always. You, Ed Greene, and James attend the same training school?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
_Chewy_Thu May-03-07 02:25 AM
Member since Dec 07th 2002
5255 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#51. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 40)


  

          

Quote:
And so are you with your continual insulting remarks. You've returned and haven't changed a bit. Sour Puss as always. You, Ed Greene, and James attend the same training school?


I was never here you donkey. I'm just a figment of your imagination to constantly be a thorn in your side.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                    
giseudaThu May-03-07 02:47 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#52. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to _Chewy_ (Reply # 51)
Thu May-03-07 04:24 AM by giseuda

  

          

Yep...You act like an ass...no question about that.

Have you ever had any experience with a 6'2" 260lb redneck?

Come on down bunky!

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                        
bobwThu May-03-07 12:51 PM
Member since Nov 24th 2001
2387 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#53. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 52)
Thu May-03-07 12:52 PM by bobw

  

          

Hey anyone know what a John John is ? Could it be a 2 hole outhouse?? ?

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                            
giseudaThu May-03-07 03:00 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#54. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to bobw (Reply # 53)
Thu May-03-07 05:32 PM by giseuda

  

          

Best thing I can do is leave that one alone..I've already put my foot into a ton of shit

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                
81 NewbeeMon Apr-30-07 02:19 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#20. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 11)


  

          

James, my friend,your description hardly matches those "boat people" who settled in large numbers here in San Jose and the local area.No jet planes, and few if any who could afford such transportation.Their education was paid for by our taxpayers and they are finally assimilated into the mainstream.Their language is now on our ballots.My greater concern is for those who sided with the US and who are unable to get out.Your little dig about how we always make out is not what I expected from you.Those whom we have defeated in war truly "make out".We do not keep territory or plunder those we defeat.Losing a war to us is almost as good as winning the lottery !Seriously though,I think we are much better as a country than we get credit for.After the elections (08),perhaps even the Democrats will come to admit that they put politics ahead of winning the war
PS:I am waiting for our European critics to step up in Darfur.Or are they still waiting for us.Whimps(?) Indeed !

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
jazz4freeMon Apr-30-07 07:56 AM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#23. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 20)
Mon Apr-30-07 07:57 AM by jazz4free

  

          

This is a very different time and situation from Viet Nam, John. I doubt seriously that militant Iraqis of any faction will be much concerned about taking reprisals against those who have sided with the U.S. -- their murderous intent to one another is endemic. It has a deeply-entrenched history, one that goes back a millennium before Columbus first stumbled across America. And, my friend, no dig was intended -- I'm sorry that one was perceived.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
81 NewbeeTue May-01-07 12:09 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#28. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 23)


  

          

Yes ,James,as was the situation in Bosnia and many Republicans used that reasoning to condemn Clintons decision to move in there.(I for one was pleased that he took that action just as I believed Bush was right in taking out Sadam)I did not believe his statement that our troops would be back home in a year and felt he knew better as well.(We still have some there.)
You recall that Tito held that area together by force as well.Things are not perfect there yet,but it is slowly improving.I had hope that the same could happen in the middle east starting with Iraq.I will be 87 next month BUT hope springs eternal!I do not take offense at what happens in this forum.I repeat ,"this is my second family"I may not agree with them all the time but I enjoy and learn from the discussions even when they get overheated.Regards, John

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                    
KJTMon Apr-30-07 10:53 AM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#24. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 20)


  

          

Question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

Answer: "No, of course not."

Question: "When did you stop?"

Quote:
After the elections (08),perhaps even the Democrats will come to admit that they put politics ahead of winning the war


Your statement is just as misleading and deceptive as the "do you still beat your wife" question. Just as the wife-beating question assumes as fact that you beat your wife, your statement assumes as fact that all "Democrats" have truly "put politics ahead of winning the war". You have no more evidence to back up your slander than I have that you ever beat your wife, but you didn't let that stop you from making the insinuation.

If I were to say, "Maybe after the '08 elections, the Republicans will come to admit that they put politics ahead of ending the war", it would be as equally absurd as your statement. And it's a statement that I'd anticipate you would dispute.

You usually don't allow your partisanism to shine through so brightly.

Jim.





  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
pakoMon Apr-30-07 04:16 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#25. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to KJT (Reply # 24)


          

Quote:
Your statement is just as misleading and deceptive as the "do you still beat your wife" question. Just as the wife-beating question assumes as fact that you beat your wife, your statement assumes as fact that all "Democrats" have truly "put politics ahead of winning the war". You have no more evidence to back up your slander than I have that you ever beat your wife, but you didn't let that stop you from making the insinuation.

If I were to say, "Maybe after the '08 elections, the Republicans will come to admit that they put politics ahead of ending the war", it would be as equally absurd as your statement. And it's a statement that I'd anticipate you would dispute.

You usually don't allow your partisanism to shine through so brightly.

Jim


Lets at least try to be factual and not get so worked up about Newbee’s perfect “08” hypothetical by introducing wife-beating into the mix.

It is clearly an obvious fact the current majority of the pre“08” democrats are promoting lies and insinuations in an effort to defeat Bush by sabotaging the U.S. effort in Iraq.

Tell me, my old X-friend Jimmie, for what other reason would left wingers insist on painting such a dismal and deceitful picture?




  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
jazz4freeMon Apr-30-07 05:12 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#26. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 25)


  

          

To quote a very famous right-winger, "There you go again." groan

What's the use. I, for one, surrender to bedlam. surrender

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
ShellyMon Apr-30-07 11:34 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#27. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 25)


  

          

I often wonder what universe you live in.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                        
81 NewbeeTue May-01-07 12:42 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#29. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to KJT (Reply # 24)


  

          

Hi Jim,I do not beat my wife because she is a little Italian terrorist who could kick the stuffing out of me should that be her desire.Instead she makes great meals and has taken great care of me for the past 60 years.
But more to the point,I do believe that the tack that some of the Democrats are taking is political and to me is not a good thing to do.Do I think ALL of them are doing it for pure political reasons?NO!Do I think it is an encouragement to the Terrorists ?YES!
I was in disagreement with the Republicans who were negative on Clintons moves into Bosnia ,Africa, and Haiti.I have always been of the belief that when a decision is made by our leader(of either party)to go to war,our outward position to the world should be support.The disagreements should be as internal as possible.I was not in favor of the anti Vietnam positions either when they got so out of hand that the vets were mocked and mistreated either.The ranting is out of hand and getting worse today.If they feel so strongly about it ,CUT OFF THE FUNDS.If you don't believe much of it is political think about why that has not been done....yet !If I upset you with my statement,I suggest you may be a little thin skinned and more partisan than you accuse me of being.Such is life in the "OFF TOPIC FORUM" !

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
DuaneTue May-01-07 01:36 AM
Charter member
422 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#30. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 29)


          

81 Newbee, that is an excellent summation and perspective of the situation as it now exists. I, likely one of only few here, agree completely with your thoughts.

duane

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
giseudaTue May-01-07 01:47 AM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#31. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 29)


  

          

Wow! Almost 87. Congrats and happy birthday. Keep up the good posting.

Robert

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
Dave101Tue May-01-07 02:24 AM
Charter member
2645 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#32. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 29)


  

          

Good post!!! My thoughts exactly.

Dave101

"The only goddamn thing you know about the law is how to break it." Chief Lafleche

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
KJTTue May-01-07 02:26 AM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#33. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 29)


  

          

Quote:
If I upset you with my statement,I suggest you may be a little thin skinned and more partisan than you accuse me of being.


No, you didn't upset me - not in the least - I know full well what to expect from you. Let me suggest that you apply yourself to the topic and not try to deflect the discussion to the thickness of my skin.

In case you haven't realized it, you've revised your story. In your post that I replied to, you said, "the Democrats". You didn't say "some Democrats", or "a few Democrats", or "the Democrats running for the Democratic party's nomination". You said "the Democrats" I probably wouldn't have bothered to reply to you if you had said then what you say now:
Quote:
some Democrats
.

Would you have caught the absurdity of your original statement and
changed it if I hadn't called you on it? It's doubtful.

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
81 NewbeeTue May-01-07 03:11 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#34. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to KJT (Reply # 33)


  

          

Jim ,I am not inclined to make this into a contest.If that is your intent, so be it.I declare you "the winner"I think I made my position clear with my reply to your "beat your wife" barb.I am disappointed with both of our political parties and am really disapointed with the extreme war bashing by MANY Democrats(Including but not only those running for office.)I find your reply a bit impudent and amusing at the same time.I never expected my comment to be taken to mean ALL Democrats .Anyone ,and you especially, should know that if there is one party that does not walk in lock step on policy it is them !That is a given.But since you interpeted it that way ,I am glad I cleared it up for you.I hope this does not impair my membership in this family because I have the skin thicker than an alligator and enjoy the repartee.Sincerely, John

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
KJTTue May-01-07 03:41 AM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#35. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 34)


  

          

What you meant to say and what you said are two entirely different things. You have corrected the absurdity of your original statement and now clarified it ad absurdum infinitum.

As for the ""beat your wife" barb", it was never a barb. Like pako, you have missed the point entirely. Oh well.

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
Dave101Tue May-01-07 12:52 PM
Charter member
2645 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#37. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 34)


  

          

Yea that's his intent alright!!! And no it sure the hell don't impair your membership. Professional posters are like that, when they're backed into a corner they'll study the post for hrs & always find something to "call you on it". It's then no more a discussion, it's a contest & the next thing you know the thread is gone off the deepend!!!

Dave101

"The only goddamn thing you know about the law is how to break it." Chief Lafleche

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
jazz4freeTue May-01-07 01:44 PM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#38. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Dave101 (Reply # 37)


  

          

Where do I go to sign up to become a professional poster? I could use the bucks.

I, for one, can't remember ever being backed into a corner or, certainly, at a loss for words or a riposte. Jim handles himself pretty damn well, too, and in a timely fashion. As do all the rest of us who are labeled elitists and far-left liberals -- although I prefer to think of myself as a pragmatic centrist.

As a matter of fact, most of the sorry points made here by the "other side" are so copious that I limit myself to answering only those that approach a modicum of reason. Otherwise, I wouldn't be left with time to eat or sleep or brush my teeth. Or, before someone else says it, pop a beer.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                            
jazz4freeTue May-01-07 10:21 AM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#36. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 29)


  

          

John, articulate sir, I get the feeling from many of your recent posts you consider the U.S. military a hammer and geopolitics, with its myriad intricacies, a nail. If it were indeed so, America, which spends more of its treasure than all the rest of the globe combined on the “Military Industrial Complex” Ike once cautioned about, and is unhesitant to either threaten its use or actually to use it, would today be sitting in the proverbial catbird seat instead of in an outhouse perched precariously on the edge of the abyss.

It seems a pervasive attitude among some here that deadly force, or the threat of it (whether it be the preschool teacher keeping a loaded pistol in her desk drawer or the high school and college campus being an equally-opportunistic armed camp, or stealth bombers knocking the hell out of downtown You-Name-It followed by sending in the marines) is the solution we are hogtied to in the face of seemingly implacable evil.

But, we've been there and done that. Since we climbed down from the trees we've been clubbing each other over the head for this or that reason. It requires little thought to rationalize brute force as a solution, especially when it is done by proxy and we can lay our hand to more immediate concerns like shopping for Botox injections. Regardless, whether war is done with the best or worst of intention, don't you think it's high time we came to the realization it just don't f'n work? There are no victors in war -- there are only those who are left.

Proselytizing Norman-Rockwell-rural-Indiana-Christ-centric values at altruistic gunpoint is not only a contradiction on its face but is self-defeating in its purpose. People, no matter how miserable their circumstance, resent the hell out of being patronized. And passing out lollipops among the smoking rubble you've created is not the best way to win friends and influence people.

At best, we are placing a band aid on a metastasizing cancer that begs tons more thoughtful consideration and perhaps a radically different approach to treatment.

In the meanwhile, we have the bleak, simplistic, black and white prognosis of the Pakos of the world in which your countryman, friend and neighbor who may differ with you philosophically and politically, for base reasons of self interest only, is in league with and encourages the enemy to your defeat. Indeed to the defeat of the very circumstance that sustains his own privilege. The depth of commitment to thought such tortured reasoning must require beggars the imagination.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                
81 NewbeeWed May-02-07 04:37 AM
Member since Dec 10th 2001
3409 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#41. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 36)


  

          

James,my friend,I assure you that I do not believe that a military solution is the end all for most situations.I hope I don't bore you since I told this story here before. I was an idealistic young man and inclined to talk my way out of confrontations and my idealism showed in my writing of the High School Section of our local newspaper.Because of my writings the local "Beacon Peace Council" recruited me to join their organization and planned to have me travel to local schools and organizations and promote their "peace through mediation"
They sent me to a conference(brain washing session) at beautiful Lake Minnewaska in up state New York to further encourage my attitude .
There were young people from many countries there including France and Japan(I remember France because she was a beauty and Japan because at two to a room he was my room mate(our last names started with Y))
We were lectured by a Quaker leader(name escapes me)and others about the world situation and how mediation and negotiations could solve "our" problems One of the main speakers and leader was, as best I can best recall, was a man named "Carl Voss"His specialty was the current situation in Europe and Hitler in particular.he dwelled at length on how Germany had been mistreated after WW1 and that that was why Hitler had succeeded in coming to power and now that Germany had taken back the industrial areas that had been given to Czechoslovkia ,we had no further worry about Germanys intentions.The following day Germany attacked Poland and the rest of our Conference was cancelled .When I returned to Beacon the people at the Beacon Peace Council were still talking about negotiations with Hitler and blaming Chamberlain for not doing a good job.
Tojo kicked us in the testicals and my relationship with the Beacon Peace Council ended.
I was in not in agreement with many of our incursions since then but once we were committed backed the effort.I was not proud of our Panama adventure ,Africa, meant well but we blew it.Haiti good intentions but "road to hell"(Haiti still is )First Gulf War.Somebody had to do it.Iraq war,iffy but we promised after WW2 to take out dictators and of course OIL!Somolia,since Europe was emasculated we tried to do it for them.I guess we pissed the bastards off but it was the right move !I give Clinton points for that !Frankly what I was taught by the Beacon Peace Council would have l;ittle use in most of these.
As I see it today we are in a struggle with people who hate us because we are not like them .Their intent is not to convert us and not to negotiate with us but to destroy us.The fact that their religion encourages them to do so makes it even more IMPOSSIBLE to negotiate with them.(I was once a devout Catholic and know the force of a religous belief).
In our lives we meet people who we cannot have a meaningful discussion with let alone make a compromise.Hell this forum is a classic example .The comments over trivia are brutal and dishartening at time.I hope that as some of those who make the remarks will read them again later in life and realize that anger over trivia does little to improve their judgement of others.Human natuure is little changed since we climbed down from the trees ,James but like it or not even today it may take brute force to subdue those who strke out to do harm to others over trivia.Life in the OFF TOPIC FORUM can seem life threatening with some of the attitudes displayed at times.People like "NPNCL"keep my slim hopes for mankinds future alive.I hope she never gives up !Regards, john

81 Newbee

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                    
jazz4freeWed May-02-07 08:05 AM
Member since Sep 30th 2004
8658 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#42. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to 81 Newbee (Reply # 41)


  

          

Thank you for the informative biography, John. You have lived a history I've only read about. It just goes to highlight the fact that all we junior partners would be better off doing more listening and less talking.

I was amazed, poleaxed, recently to discover that there are so damn many among us who have been around for fifty years and more and still could not recognize photo portraits of the monsters (from both the extreme left and right) who were enabled to shape much of the horrendous agenda of this just-past century. "Who's that guy? -- never saw him before..."

To paraphrase George Santayana, "Those who don't know history are doomed to relive it."

And I agree, Noreen is something else. Beautiful and smart -- an unbeatable combo. I wonder if she's got money...

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                        
ablibWed May-02-07 05:08 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#43. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to jazz4free (Reply # 42)
Wed May-02-07 05:45 PM by ablib

  

          

Quote:
To paraphrase George Santayana, "Those who don't know history are doomed to relive it."



...and those who cannot remember Santayana are condemned to misquote him!

Santayana's actual quote was "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"


This quote has been repeated over and over during the years, even Santayana reused it. The originator seems to be Edmund Burke with "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it"


Edit: Just added to show how this phrase often gets misquoted. Even sometimes showing Santayana as the originator.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
KJTWed May-02-07 05:14 PM
Charter member
15901 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#44. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to ablib (Reply # 43)


  

          

It seems you don't know what a "paraphrase" is.

Hint: It's not a "quotation".

Jim.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
ablibWed May-02-07 05:41 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#48. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to KJT (Reply # 44)


  

          

You're right, I jumped over that part. I speed read.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                            
Dave101Wed May-02-07 05:15 PM
Charter member
2645 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#45. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to ablib (Reply # 43)


  

          

Actually it was "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Dave101

"The only goddamn thing you know about the law is how to break it." Chief Lafleche

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
ShellyWed May-02-07 05:22 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#46. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Dave101 (Reply # 45)


  

          

The history of the human race shows that we rarely learn from past mistakes. Each generation seems to have to learn all over again, the hard way.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
BobGuyWed May-02-07 05:24 PM
Charter member
2203 posts
Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#47. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Dave101 (Reply # 45)


          

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                    
ablibWed May-02-07 05:43 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#50. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to BobGuy (Reply # 47)


  

          

I know. I don't know how anyone can take Bush seriously on that aircraft carrier wearing that uniform knowing his past.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                    
pakoThu May-03-07 07:19 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#55. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to BobGuy (Reply # 47)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:





Dear Poster,

The difference is;

AWOL was a fabrication of lies propagated by the hateful Bush Bashers, it astonishes me that by now everyone is not aware of it.
Any rational person would reason Bush was in flight gear because he just got off a airplane - that had just landed on a ship - in the ocean.
I would think you realize the poor uncouth democrat dude was acting for the cameras in want of gaining favors as a war hero.


As A;ways,


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                        
giseudaThu May-03-07 08:10 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#56. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 55)


  

          

You could have taken Bush out of a military surplus store the way he was dressed in that photo. No comparison.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                        
ShellyFri May-04-07 02:11 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#57. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 55)


  

          

Well, not quite.

The ship was just offshore of San Diego California. The captain turned the ship around so that the city skyline would not be seen in the TV reports. Bush could have made the trip to the ship easily by motor boat, or helicopter, but then you would not have had the dramatic if phony Carl Rove produced and directed entrance. Mission Accomplished!

The fact that Bush never reported for duty at his new assignment is well documented. When I was in uniform if you did not report for duty you were AWOL. Bush never reported for duty again and never flew a fighter for another hour. I guess you would have to call that "the wrong stuff".

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                            
pakoFri May-04-07 03:57 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#58. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 57)


          


Not being familiar with landing an airplane on a aircraft carrier, you fall short in understanding the principal of heading the carrier into the wind to facilitate the landings.

IMO, He wanted no more than to freshen up his expertise by landing that airplane on the carrier, . You are aware he was a certified military pilot?


Are you under the assumption Carl Rowe was acting as “Landing Signals Officer of the Day”?

Bush Bashers were of the opinion Bush reneged in reporting for duty and they screamed so loudly in unisons that even they started believing it.
But then what else do they do good?




  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                
No_OneFri May-04-07 04:25 PM
Charter member
805 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#59. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 58)


          

Quote:
IMO, He wanted no more than to freshen up his expertise by landing that airplane on the carrier, . You are aware he was a certified military pilot?



I'm sorry, but you probably should stop digging your hole you are creating for yourself.

For an Air National Guard pilot, of any experience, to land a plane on an aircraft carrier would be quite a feat. Especially when he has never done it before.

And this has nothing to do with Republican vs. Democrat, it is more of an Air Force-Navy thing.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                    
pakoFri May-04-07 06:00 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#61. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to No_One (Reply # 59)


          

That was just my opinion, as stated. If he did not land it, why was he sitting in the cockpit when the tail hook engaged the arresting cable? Should I find I was wrong, I at least am a person of extreme esteem who would take no offense in admitting it.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                        
bobwFri May-04-07 09:07 PM
Member since Nov 24th 2001
2387 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#62. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 61)


  

          

May as well give it up pako !you are trying to deal with the resident genius,that has been everywhere in the World lived everywhere in the World ,and knows everything that is to be known.And has done everything that can be done, there was one other on this forum, he no longer post here,and I was accused of being instrumental in his departure,yes indeed, more than one flew over the cukoos nest

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

Attachment #1, ( file)

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                
ShellyFri May-04-07 04:36 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#60. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 58)


  

          

You obviously are unaware that California is on the west coast, The the prevailing winds come off or the pacific and that the ship was pointed so that the plane had to land with the wind since aircraft approach from the stern. You are also unaware that a carrier has arresting cables that stop the aircraft. You are further not aware that a pilot has to have maintained his certification on a specific aircraft in order to fly it and that Bush has not flown a fighter in many years. You are further unaware of the fact that Bush did not pilot that fighter, he was a passenger. No sitting president would be allowed to make a carrier landing, and Bush never made one, he was a member of the Air National Guard before he went AWOL. And finally, you are unaware that I am a qualified pilot.

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                    
giseudaFri May-04-07 09:40 PM
Member since Nov 17th 2002
1981 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#63. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 60)


  

          

Pardon my ignorance, but when did Bush go AWOL?

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                        
ShellyFri May-04-07 11:00 PM
Charter member
58338 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#65. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 63)


  

          

http://www.tompaine.com/Archive/scontent/3671.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article254.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer

Shelly

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                        
pakoFri May-04-07 11:28 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#66. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to giseuda (Reply # 63)


          

Quote:
QUOTE:
Pardon my ignorance, but when did Bush go AWOL?


Have you noticed William Jefferson evaded the draft like it was a hot potato, not even a minuet served in the military. His worshipers refuse to speak to that.


  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                            
bobwSat May-05-07 12:10 AM
Member since Nov 24th 2001
2387 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#67. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to pako (Reply # 66)


  

          

Oh yes " Every derogatory remark,allegation etc ,about Bush, is of course the gospel,factual ,etc. however, every derogatory remark ,allegation, etc, said about John Kerrys military service and record is a damn lie ,according to his worshipers. He said they said,the Internet is full of it, it has become an instrument of degradation ,and has caused more problems ,hatred and dissention than any other instrument of communication on this earth.It is out of control,and no fix will evolve. However " not in my lifetime " but I do believe it will eventually come under total Government control,and that wont fix it either.

Microsoft Windows XP Home
IE Explorer 7.0 2800 1106
330 Intel Celeron Processor
2.66 GHz
256K L2 Cache
533Mhz FSB-60 GB HD

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                                    
pakoFri May-04-07 10:47 PM
Charter member
1844 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#64. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Shelly (Reply # 60)


          

Quote:
You are also unaware that a carrier has arresting cables that stop the aircraft.
What is that thing called that stops the airplane when the tail-hook does not engage the arresting cables?
Quote:
Bush never made one, he was a member of the Air National Guard before he went AWOL.
There is no factual record of Bush ever being AWOL its still just more propaganda by his adversaries.
Quote:
And finally, you are unaware that I am a qualified pilot.
Yes I was unaware of that, and you were unaware I was once a certified pilot.

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

                                                
ablibWed May-02-07 05:42 PM
Member since Mar 04th 2002
13216 posts
Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
#49. "RE: A Failure in Generalship"
In response to Dave101 (Reply # 45)


  

          

Actually it was what I originally posted:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason.

Visit the Basement

  

Alert Printer-friendly copy | | Top

Top The PC Q&A Forum Off-Topic Lounge topic #129548 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.27
Copyright 1997-2003 DCScripts.com
Home
Links
About PCQandA
Link To Us
Support PCQandA
Privacy Policy
In Memoriam
Acceptable Use Policy

Have a question or problem regarding this forum? Check here for the answer.