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

Fri Sep 28 11:08:12 PDT 2007

Ron,
    I doubt that any military leaders are truly afraid of a Democrat  
being a president. Unless they have their own political ambitions and  
they don't want the corruption infested underbelly of this nice  
little war in Iraq to become public lest they be branded as  
supporting Bush or worse making military decision based on political  
calculations.
     Maybe those folks who you see as scared or at least concerned  
are not so much scared of democrats as much as they are scared of a  
few ugly ghosts in their own closet.

Katie

On Sep 27, 2007, at 12:20 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> Whoa! That's a lot of stuff in response to a wry joke, David.
>
> I don't think it's possible equate a vicious killer like Bin Ladin  
> with
> Obama or Clinton. It astonishes me that you would make such a leap.
>
> But they do all have this in common: they publicly want our  
> military out of
> Iraq. If you think that somehow makes them in any way similar  
> people, I
> suggest you are living on a quite different planet than I do. That  
> would be
> like equating Hitler with FDR because the both wanted to reduce  
> poverty and
> unemployment for their troubled nations.
>
> Our military commanders, whose profession is war, have been  
> committed to a
> course of action. I'd be disappointed if they didn't want to  
> succeed with
> their military force.
>
> Yes, I think a lot of military commanders are concerned (perhaps  
> afraid) of
> the next administration, and they are far more concerned about the
> possibility of a Democratic President than a Republican one because a
> Democrat will have something to prove to the people.
>
> After all, it's the Democrats in Congress who are fighting to start  
> very
> quick withdrawals right now! That's a clear message to the American  
> public:
> vote Democrat and we're out of Iraq. I have a feeling that idea has  
> a huge
> amount of popular support.
>
> And that leaves Bin Ladin. Not just the military commanders, but  
> everyone
> needs to be concerned (perhaps even afraid) of him. I do not  
> believe that he
> is a rational person who will stop terrorism just because we have  
> pulled our
> troops out of Iraq.
>
> Ron D'Eau Claire
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: grovenet-bounces at rdrop.com [mailto:grovenet- 
> bounces at rdrop.com] On
> Behalf Of David Morelli
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:31 PM
> To: Forest Grove local interests list
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet