Internet News

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:58:35 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I understand that no one reason fully explains the failures...

Sure, there's one reason. Cowardice in the face of opposition,
plain and simple. Bush I's cowardice.

--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak

My "From" address is munged - c**** "Reply To" to respond via email.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 03:39:41 -0600, Al Superczynski
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:58:35 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I understand that no one reason fully explains the failures...
>
> Sure, there's one reason. Cowardice in the face of opposition,
>plain and simple. Bush I's cowardice.

The use of such value loaded words seems a bit much. There is also
the aspect of keeping one's word. I realize that isn't exactly how
diplomacy always works but trust between nations is critical unless
you want them as an enemy.

If they are already an enemy it doesn't matter. You do what you have
to do. It may well turn out that the Gulf War agreement to not occupy
Iraq was a bad one. It certainly seemed like something less than a
wonderful decision at the time - at least to me. I changed my mind
after understanding there was an up-front agreement not to occupy
Iraq. So I guess that puts me right in the coward ring with President
Bush.

--
cg

Al,

> I recall thinking he was a coward for not doing the right thing
> in spite of opposition.

You missed 41's point. Centuries of history have proven the "right thing"
you refer-to is impossible to do.

> His son is showing true courage.

To be kind, naivete would be my choice of words.

Allan

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:19:21 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
wrote:

>....I guess that puts me right in the coward ring with President
>Bush.

No, it doesn't. You didn't have to make the decision.
--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak

My "From" address is munged - c**** "Reply To" to respond via email.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 06:40:54 -0500, "Allan Smith" <>
wrote:

>Centuries of history have proven the "right thing"
>you refer-to is impossible to do.

We didn't help liberate the people of Germany and Japan from
dictators? How about Panama? Yugoslavia? The former members of the
Warsaw Pact?

We have not always been successful but neither have we always
failed.

>> His son is showing true courage.
>
>To be kind, naivete would be my choice of words.

I'll stick with 'courage'. It's my firm belief that history will
vindicate him. IMO, of course.

--
"I am alone: all drowns in the Pharisees' hypocrisy". - Boris Pasternak

My "From" address is munged - c**** "Reply To" to respond via email.

Al,

> We didn't help liberate the people of Germany and Japan from
> dictators?

All declared wars, with global participation.

> How about Panama?

It went on and on and ended only after the Dictator was actually taken into
custody alive. Last I heard, we dion't have bin Laden or Hussein.

> Yugoslavia? The former members of the
> Warsaw Pact?

That happened more on its own than with any external intervention. Normal
process of cultural evolution.

You left out Bosnia. After the majority of the States of the world, thru the
UN, made its views clear, acted jointly only to put a stop to obvious
crimes, and applied ecomonic sanctions to the State, the "elected dictator"
was replaced by the electorate.

Same with the first Gulf War with regard to addressing the problem of an
unprovoked invasion of one State by another.

> We have not always been successful but neither have we always
> failed.

<chuckle> depends on the cir***stances. We have about the same chance as
others throughout history in similar cir***stance.

Most recently, Russia in Afganistan. Acted alone against Nomadic culture,
brought to bear massive military might, installed puppet government, had
good support among the majority of the populus of the cities, spent more
than a decade, lost untold thousands of soldiers, then finally gave up,
largely due to the severe drain of the Afganistan operations on the economy,
and political pressure from within the Party.

Those who do not learn from history usually repeat it. I see few reasons to
argue that our adventure among the Nomads will follow a course much
different from Russia's adventure.

Two things are necessary to change that - the capture alive of _both_ bin
Laden and Hussein, and global support of and participation in our efforts in
Iraq.

I'd suspect the overall probablity of both of those happening is rather low.

Allan

"Duine" <> wrote in message news:<Mxupb.25684$>...
> "cg" <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:26:23 -0500, "Allan Smith"
> > <netsmith@(whereeveryoumightimagine).net> wrote:
> >
> > >"I firmly believed we should not march into Baghdad ...To occupy Iraq
> would
> > >instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us
> and
> > >make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . assigning young
> soldiers
> > >to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
> them
> > >to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war."
> > >
> > >I recall thinking at the time that those words of Bush 41 were both
> > >insightful, and wise.
> >
> > In the light of history these words may, or may not, have been wise.
> > In light of the agreement he had reached with the Arab nations it is
> > difficult for me to see that he had any choice in the matter.
> >
> > --
> > cg
>
> I am amused by those who one hand castigate Bush senior for not invading
> Iraq (thereby allowing SH to remain in power) and now tout him as some sort
> of wise seer for not invading Iraq. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the "game
> rules" for the Desert Storm coalition included not invading Iraq and Bush
> senior had to play by those rules regardless of personal desires.
>
> Duine

Who did that?

"joey_schabadoo" <> wrote in message
news: om...

>
> Who did that?

Did what?

Duine

"cg" <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:31:56 GMT, "Duine" <> wrote:
>
> >I am amused by those who one hand castigate Bush senior for not invading
> >Iraq (thereby allowing SH to remain in power) and now tout him as some
sort
> >of wise seer for not invading Iraq. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the
"game
> >rules" for the Desert Storm coalition included not invading Iraq and Bush
> >senior had to play by those rules regardless of personal desires.
>
> I continue to believe Schwarzkopf played a significant role in causing
> the failure of the rebellions that took place in Iraq after the Gulf
> War ended.
>

I don't know how the rebellions had a chance without direct intervention of
the U.S., something not possible with the Desert Storm coalition agreement.

The two times I recall Bush senior being really stupid were with the "No new
taxes" promise followed by caving into the Democrats on taxes and signing up
to the Desert Storm coalition game plan. I also have no doubt that GWB's
current approach to dealing with our enemies is rooted in seeing what
happened to Bush senior and the region.

> I understand that no one reason fully explains the failures but I also
> understand that Hussein's ability to use his helicopters against those
> in revolt was a significant reason for their defeat.
> --
> cg

SH was given a free pass to do anything he wanted after Desert Storm, as
long as he did it within his own country.

Duine

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:08:33 -0600, Al Superczynski
<> wrote:

>On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:19:21 GMT, cg <cgrams007@{removethis}yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>....I guess that puts me right in the coward ring with President
>>Bush.
>
> No, it doesn't. You didn't have to make the decision.

Knowing what I know, I would have made the exact same decision.

--
cg