AUSTIN GENERAL 28 CAN T DO IT IN AFGHAN HOW CAN WE DO IT IN IRAQ
From: SendGeeDumbya@no-spam (Monte)
Subject: Can't do it in Afghan, how can we do it in Iraq?
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:40:44 GMT


http://www.msnbc.com/news/930618.asp?0cv=CB20

The word the Whitehouse hates to hear almost as much as WMD.
Afghanistan!
It's a mess and getting worse. The 82d Airborne is so overwhelmed (by territory to be covered) that it can do little but protect its tail and once in awhile do a company sized operation. They are being killed off one at a time.

The UN(allies) are saying send more troops and Pres rummy is refusing.
For the obvious reason that to do so would bring widespread media coverage highlighting the mess.

Sounds familiar doesn't it? Quick attack, enemy folds immediately,
country turns to chaos, enemy reforms and starts picking off the troops. Pentagon refuses to up the troop committment to a level that might long shot might, be able to contain the situation long enough to stabalize the region.

But the truth is we DO NOT have sufficient personnel to handle both Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone attack another country. This is why the administration is now trying to shift Iraq over to Europe(except the oil of course) then the troops can be brought home re-supplied and sent into some other 'evil' oil producing region.

The New Republicans/neoCONS are proving to be a lot less competent in overall military strategy than they are in political strategy. For those jackasses who point with such pride and say "Ha, we defeated Sadaam in record time", I would point out that Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter could have done the same given the war machine at their disposal. Hell, the Mayor of Dubuque, Iowa could have done as well.

Our troops are extended to the breaking point, the equipment is in disrepair, and they are in greater danger every day. Our home afety forces, police and fire departments are short of cash, short of people(because of the number who are reservists and stranded in Iraq),
and burdened by additional responsibilites as dictated by the genius ridge and the Homeland Security Dept. Does anyone even realize that the millions of dollars spent on overtime, equipment breakdowns etc when the alert level is raised, has so far NOT been paid by the feds?
Oh, they promise, but the truth is only a few pennies on the dollar have ever arrived at the local level.

I defy ANYONE to support the contention that this bunch of ideo-idiots in the Whitehouse are competent at anything other than theft, lying,
politics and goose-stepping!
-=Monte=-
The solution is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!


From: "LarryG" (gilstrap@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Can't do it in Afghan, how can we do it in Iraq?
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:46:38 -0500

"Monte" <SendGeeDumbya@no-spam> wrote in message news:3ef9bd90.46957281@no-spam > http://www.msnbc.com/news/930618.asp?0cv=CB20
>
> The word the Whitehouse hates to hear almost as much as WMD.
> Afghanistan!
>
> It's a mess and getting worse. The 82d Airborne is so overwhelmed (by > territory to be covered) that it can do little but protect its tail > and once in awhile do a company sized operation. They are being > killed off one at a time.
>
> The UN(allies) are saying send more troops and Pres rummy is refusing.
> For the obvious reason that to do so would bring widespread media > coverage highlighting the mess.
>
> Sounds familiar doesn't it? Quick attack, enemy folds immediately,
> country turns to chaos, enemy reforms and starts picking off the > troops. Pentagon refuses to up the troop committment to a level that > might long shot might, be able to contain the situation long enough to > stabalize the region.
>
> But the truth is we DO NOT have sufficient personnel to handle both > Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone attack another country. This is why > the administration is now trying to shift Iraq over to Europe(except > the oil of course) then the troops can be brought home re-supplied > and sent into some other 'evil' oil producing region.
>
> The New Republicans/neoCONS are proving to be a lot less competent in > overall military strategy than they are in political strategy. For > those jackasses who point with such pride and say "Ha, we defeated > Sadaam in record time", I would point out that Gerald Ford or Jimmy > Carter could have done the same given the war machine at their > disposal. Hell, the Mayor of Dubuque, Iowa could have done as well.
>
> Our troops are extended to the breaking point, the equipment is in > disrepair, and they are in greater danger every day. Our home afety > forces, police and fire departments are short of cash, short of > people(because of the number who are reservists and stranded in Iraq),
> and burdened by additional responsibilites as dictated by the genius > ridge and the Homeland Security Dept. Does anyone even realize that > the millions of dollars spent on overtime, equipment breakdowns etc > when the alert level is raised, has so far NOT been paid by the feds?
> Oh, they promise, but the truth is only a few pennies on the dollar > have ever arrived at the local level.
>
> I defy ANYONE to support the contention that this bunch of ideo-idiots > in the Whitehouse are competent at anything other than theft, lying,
> politics and goose-stepping!
>
>
> -=Monte=-
> The solution is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!

Sounds like the only way we will ever "win" is to get medieval on some tribal chiefs and mullahs. This will, of course, be seen as a war on Islam,
and the real wars will begin, just as Osama wanted. But, then again, these people were never on our side to begin with. If they aid and abet Osama,
Al Qaeda, the Taliban or terrorists, give them a chance to surrender, then wipe them out the rest.

Cheers,
Larry G.


Subject: Re: Can't do it in Afghan, how can we do it in Iraq?
From: Mapanari (Fakeaddress@no-spam)
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:37:50 GMT

"LarryG" <gilstrap@no-spam> babbled and bored us in news:HNOdnSRJHrUuZmSjXTWcpg@no-spam
> "Monte" <SendGeeDumbya@no-spam> wrote in message > news:3ef9bd90.46957281@no-spam >> http://www.msnbc.com/news/930618.asp?0cv=CB20
>>
>> The word the Whitehouse hates to hear almost as much as WMD.
>> Afghanistan!
>>
>> It's a mess and getting worse. The 82d Airborne is so overwhelmed (by >> territory to be covered) that it can do little but protect its tail >> and once in awhile do a company sized operation. They are being >> killed off one at a time.
>>
>> The UN(allies) are saying send more troops and Pres rummy is refusing.
>> For the obvious reason that to do so would bring widespread media >> coverage highlighting the mess.
>>
>> Sounds familiar doesn't it? Quick attack, enemy folds immediately,
>> country turns to chaos, enemy reforms and starts picking off the >> troops. Pentagon refuses to up the troop committment to a level that >> might long shot might, be able to contain the situation long enough to >> stabalize the region.
>>
>> But the truth is we DO NOT have sufficient personnel to handle both >> Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone attack another country. This is why >> the administration is now trying to shift Iraq over to Europe(except >> the oil of course) then the troops can be brought home re-supplied >> and sent into some other 'evil' oil producing region.
>>
>> The New Republicans/neoCONS are proving to be a lot less competent in >> overall military strategy than they are in political strategy. For >> those jackasses who point with such pride and say "Ha, we defeated >> Sadaam in record time", I would point out that Gerald Ford or Jimmy >> Carter could have done the same given the war machine at their >> disposal. Hell, the Mayor of Dubuque, Iowa could have done as well.
>>
>> Our troops are extended to the breaking point, the equipment is in >> disrepair, and they are in greater danger every day. Our home afety >> forces, police and fire departments are short of cash, short of >> people(because of the number who are reservists and stranded in Iraq),
>> and burdened by additional responsibilites as dictated by the genius >> ridge and the Homeland Security Dept. Does anyone even realize that >> the millions of dollars spent on overtime, equipment breakdowns etc >> when the alert level is raised, has so far NOT been paid by the feds?
>> Oh, they promise, but the truth is only a few pennies on the dollar >> have ever arrived at the local level.
>>
>> I defy ANYONE to support the contention that this bunch of ideo-idiots >> in the Whitehouse are competent at anything other than theft, lying,
>> politics and goose-stepping!
>>
>>
>> -=Monte=-
>> The solution is simple, send pretzels to the Whitehouse!
> > Sounds like the only way we will ever "win" is to get medieval on some > tribal chiefs and mullahs. This will, of course, be seen as a war on > Islam, and the real wars will begin, just as Osama wanted. But, then > again, these people were never on our side to begin with. If they aid > and abet Osama, Al Qaeda, the Taliban or terrorists, give them a chance > to surrender, then wipe them out the rest.
> > Cheers,
> Larry G.
> > >
The only way to win, is to pay Iraqi Baathists a bounty on every designated Shiite mullah who fucks with us, and pay a bounty to Shiites on every Baathist who snipes at us from behind huts.

It's very simple. Germany and Italy proved that a form of benevolent facism is really appealing to the majority of working people in any country, and people will willing lose some rights and liberty if they feel safe themselves and will inform, turn in and hunt down "enemies of the state" if they themselves are vested in the profit of safe streets, steady jobs and a jug of red wine.

That is my plan for Iraq. Turn everyone into an arm of the "state".

A thousand eyes on every block....Mao did it right. It works.

-- -Mapi
The Mapanari of Usenet.