[Grovenet] Cheap shots -[was] first wood-stove heat of the season

[Ed Davie]

Well said, David!
Ed
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Morelli
  To: Forest Grove local interests list
  Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:30 PM
  Subject: [Grovenet] Cheap shots -[was] first 
wood-stove heat of the season



  On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire 
wrote:

  > Of course! What's your point?
  >
  > I'm glad that Osama made the list, since he's 
the only actual
  > threat the USA has faced from that part of the 
world, although Iran
  > is trying hard to join him.
  >
  > But any member of the US military from 
commander to private who
  > believes in a military solution to Iraq and 
who isn't greatly
  > concerned about the choices any Democratic 
president will make has
  > to be nuts.
  >
  > If the Dems don't blow this election (like the 
last) and we put a
  > Democratic President in office, that President 
will most likely
  > run, not walk toward the nearest exit from 
military involvement in
  > Iraq.
  >
  > I can't imagine who in the military or the 
general public who
  > believes we should pursue a military victory 
in Iraq is happy with
  > that prospect.
  >
  > I can't imagine anyone in the military, 
whether they believe in a
  > military solution or not, being happy with the 
whole Iraq war,
  > especially if we suddenly bail out of Iraq. In 
that sense it will
  > be Vietnam all over again.
  >
  > If I believed in a military solution to our 
world-wide problems,
  > I'd be very much afraid of those three people 
myself.
  >
  > Ron D'Eau Claire

  My point?  You told a joke that put an American 
Senator and an ex-
  First Lady into a common pot with the symbol of 
world wide Islamic
  terrorism.  You would demean Democratic 
presidential candidates with
  this joke, presumably to further the political 
chances of the
  Republican presidential candidates.

  You speak as if the Democratic candidates have 
weakened our standing
  in the "War on Terror", and that a skilled 
military person would be
  afraid of their leadership.

  Reality check.  We were attacked by Saudi funded 
Islamic militants
  based out of Afghanistan with the tacit approval 
of the Taliban
  government.  We responded, with wide 
international support, with a
  war in Afghanistan, that we almost won.  We 
almost had a military
  solution in Afghanistan.

  But the Republican Administration with the full 
and complete approval
  of the Republican Congress and the support of 
the Conservative media
  turned their back on winning the war on terror 
in Afghanistan, turned
  against hunting down and taking to task the 
perpetrators of 9/11,
  turned against cutting of the source of funding 
for international
  terrorism, and turned against rebuilding 
Afghanistan into a
  functioning democracy.  Completion of that 
military action and
  rebuilding a stable progressive nation in 
Afghanistan could have
  overcome decades of damage by their war of 
independence from Russia.
  And it would have told the world what America 
stands for, not just
  what we stand against.

  We said that we would get the plotters of 9-11 
and that we would
  rebuild Afghanistan.

  We could have won in Afghanistan, not just 
gotten vengeance.  We
  could have shown our mettle and our ideals.  We 
could have shown that
  America's interests were in stopping Islamic 
terrorists and building
  stable democracies as alternatives to rigid 
theocracies.    Instead,
  we showed the world that we are interested in 
cheap oil.  We will
  tolerate any indignity, suffer any pain, inflict 
any damage, so long
  as we have access to cheap oil.

  -----------------------------------

  The Republican version of a "military solution" 
in Iraq, is to hold
  out long enough to pass the blame for failure 
unto the Democrats.
  The Democrats version of a "military solution" 
in Iraq is to gain
  control of Congress and the Presidency in 2008. 
The soldiers,
  sailors and aviators who die between now and 
then are just
  "collateral damage" to both of them.

  To me, a "military solution" involves a solution 
provided by military
  action, generally this means that the other side 
surrenders and our
  side declares "victory" and comes home.  This 
was the expected result
  of the Iraq invasion.  Remember?  It was 
advertised as "Mission
  Accomplished!"

  Who seriously believes that an American 
"military victory" is
  possible in Iraq?  We don't even have a military 
opponent to beat.
  We face a growing number of civilians who are 
part-time guerrilla
  soldiers.  We face an undefined war zone with 
porous borders.  We
  don't have the option of demanding an 
"unconditional surrender",
  which means that IF any victory is possible, it 
will be political in
  all or part.  Our military is fighting a holding 
action until a
  political solution can be created.

  We certainly have brave and honorable soldiers 
who will give 100% to
  the military effort in Iraq.  They were put 
there by an
  Administration that believes in "a military 
solution to our world
  wide problems".  I give our military people in 
Iraq credit for enough
  intelligence to know the difference between the 
current "holding
  action" in Iraq and a true "military solution".

  David


  _______________________________________________
  GroveNet mailing list
  GroveNet at rdrop.com
  http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet