Sounds like fun but I'll be enjoying lugging 60 wheelbarrow loads of heavy wet concrete, then after that for kicks we get to float it and trowel it. Yeeeehaaaaw. The only good part is that now he owes me big time :) And the house is going to need painting this year.
I read the letters to the editor. This one is by Thomas Nelson of Freeport, NY, and addressed to the Public Editor of the New York Times.
"We need to state some unpleasant truths if we are to develop a set of workable standards for these times. The fact is that we are engaged in a real war. Our foe has been quite clear in stating the intention to eliminate us. "Seeking out and presenting the opposing position may be good journalism in peacetime, but in wartime it is beyond inappropriate. It bestows the enemy position with a spurious claim to have some sort of equivalence. History clearly teaches that normal rules must be adjusted in abnormal situations. Are you and the The Times going to accommodate that reality?"
Moveon.org: Maybe now the American people will finally grow up when they see their children slaughtered on a French beach and huddled in hedgerows waiting to die. But what they don’t know is that thousands of poor conscripted Russians and eastern Europeans were innocent targets whom our boys killed on so-called D-Day. And does America want to deal with the five thousand French civilians who died in our secret bombing campaign before the invasion? Let those who said we’d be greeted with roses explain the charred bodies of women and children to the French public.
Noam Chomsky: It is well recognized that there is already a pipeline across the Channel. On good authority we know that petroleum is already flowing to this new captive European market. As leading scholars have pointed out, to understand the barbarism at Normandy one must learn about Standard Oil and British Petroleum—and the Rockefeller-Ford nexus.
General Zinni: Too few troops. No harbors. Inadequate equipment. Hare-brained glider landings. Add that up and you get the disaster we are in now. Count how many tanks made it to the beach. All this fancy new airborne stuff, the floating tanks, the engineers are no substitute for boots on the ground. Ask a Mark Clark or other great generals privately what they think of Marshall and you’ll get an ear full. Some day the American people will learn the real reason why we switched over to landing on the beaches in Europe. Read my book.
General Odom: Get out now. Cut your losses. Leave that pocket. Amphibious landings are bad ideas. Night air-drops are lunatic. No plan to deal with the follow up. Too few troops to break out. No help from the so-called French resistance. Who thought this up? Pull out, regroup and ask who is our real enemy in this war and how we can better attack him. I was under the impression that the Japanese, not the Germans, bombed Pearl Harbor.
Ted Koppel: Tonight I will read the names of the dead of the 101st Airborne, tomorrow the 82nd. Have patience with us. There really are thousands of American casualties—and this was just on the first day of what we know is more to come later this month. And while our leaders don’t wish to deal with it, we at ABC do—and think you do as well.
Anyway, the point of the columnist to me is: that if the invasion took place today, there would be criticism of a certain level. Maybe there was then. I would hope there was. And I would hope that military brass at the time would be big enough people to take it. For the most part, they seem to have that ability now.
Maybe Iraq will be successful. I don't know that and neither do you. But there's nothing wrong with the scrutiny.
I think what the writer is asking is for perspective. To do what we did and are doing in Iraq, to mobilize the forces we did, engage and defeat another army in the stunningly short time without a sustained air campaign. Occupy and simutaneously try to rebuild, promote democracy in a country where the concept was foreign for 30 years, placate the people. Facilitate all the different factions ethnicities and religious backgrounds. Rebuild the infastructure that was decimated through years of willfull neglect. And to rebuild a shattered Iraqi pschye without bruising it is a huge task. Is it complete? No, but in one years time to do what we have done is nothing short of amazing. Are there setbacks? Yep, obstacles, check. Mistakes, yep, always will be, we're human.
Was there critiscism of Ike's plan? Sure. Because the task was so daunting and the risks so great many assumed it was destined to fail. But it beat the option of attacking at Calais where the Germans were positive we would attack and planned likewise. We had to make our own ports for God's sake. So was it risky, absolutelty, that's where leadership comes in. Now were there the cries from the armchairs and media people ? Not much from what I've read.
Perhaps it was because they, unlike some were able to see the big picture. In the battle of Normandy, 237,000 allied soldiers were killed wounded or captured between June 6th and August 29th when they were able to break from Cherbourg. and liberate Paris. http://www.edmondsun.com/Krt/dday/html/2b.htm
And the invasion force? It was made up of essentially 3 nations. The US, the Brits and the Aussies. Hmm, sounds familiar. That's right 237,000 in 3 months and that was just the allies. estimates are as high as 400,00 for the Germans. Not to mention the civilain population. After 3 months and 237,000 casualties we only occupied a portion of France, not all of it even. We had 6,400 dead and a total of over 28,000 wounded at Iwo Jima after a few weeks all for a tiny island.
What or how would we react to that today ? I don't know and I don't think I want to. We've become a society of instant gratification. We expect things perhaps effortlessly and without too much loss. Add water set power to 100% for 30 seconds an voila, instant middle eastern democracy. People couldn't wait to scream quagmire, Vietnam! after 1 week. 1 week for heavan's sake after the largest and most swift advance of any military force in history.
Does it mean some criticsm isn't warranted ? Sure, that's the way it works. There is however a difference between real concern or criticism and wanting something to fail to score points or say, I told you so or out of some twisted agenda. Leadership does demand changing course sometimes. But it also means sticking to your principles and plan when others around you are loudest in their criticism and things look their worst. There were people afterall in this nation who didn't want to go after Germany as well. They were mad and wanted only to go after the Japs because they were the ones we were really pissed at. They couldn't see why we were spending resources going after Germany. But FDR made a promise to Churchill that we would pour most of our resources at first into taking out Germany and Italy and then the Japs. Think he wasn't criticized for that? He was. But he was also right in that decsision. Do people today think it was a bad idea to take out Hitler and co. ? I doubt it. And I think 20 or 30 years from now we'll look back and say this was the right call too. Yes the jury is still out and anything can happen as Rick said. So perhaps people ought to think about what would help it fail and assess their motives if they really want it to succeed and keep things in perspective. The ship is sailed and we're there like it or not. We all have a stake in the outcome.
What are you doing up? I made the mistake of drinking half a pot of what I thought was decaff coffe. then I looked at the label. Oops. I will be paying dealry tomorrow.
Remind you of what you said? That's what I was asking. I had no idea where it even came from and you throw out yet another witty fuck you comment so I was asking what is was about, if you don't even remember I can't help you. Geez.
And please, don't hand me that "No Info-So Typical" Bull either. I am still waiting for YOU to provide detailed-info on WHOM it was out of Kerry's 2 Gunboat Crews you quoted(without a link) as claiming that their "Directly Involved" leader is a liar and a traitor...???
Well Bill, 11 0ut of the 20 men in a picture of Kerry's crew do NOT want to be used in his campaign photo. 2 are dead, 4 have had no comment and only 2 appear to support him.
Oh and here.
Nineteen of the 23 officers who served with Kerry in Vietnam had signed the letter so far, as had nearly every officer who commanded Kerry for any substantial period of time, including retired Coast Guard Capt. Adrian Lonsdale, retired Navy Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, retired Lt. Cmdr. George Elliot, and retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard.
"It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war," the letter reads.
There's no question that we are the good guys in Iraq, just as we were in South Vietnam, Korea, and during World War II. All of those conflicts were fought to keep people free. But many ignorant people think we're the bad guys.
I think we are, for various reasons, loath to talk about the role of religion in this war. And it's not to criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax."
What does he propose ? Simply calling for a war against Muslims ? Sure it's about religion, but it's about the twisting of a religion to kill in it's name. It's un P.C to say it's a war against Islam but it is I guess it's a war against fanatical Islam if you want to call it that. Big difference IMHO. There are many moderate Muslims and people who want what evey other person in the world desires. We are changing the way we're dealing with them. Instead of launching a few missles or treating it as law enforcement we are going into their home turf to try and bring about change to the system that produces animals that would behead someone for being the wrong faith or ethnicity.
The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement, but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement, but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
A terrorist thug meets his maker after he decides to try and kill some of our troops by kneeeling in the middle of the street to fire his RPG at coalition troops. May he rot in hell.
WARNING THIS IS GRPAHIC> DO NOT VIEW IT IF YOU THINK YOU"LL BE OFFENDED.
he IS talking like that...the National Posture Review talks exactlylike that. It expands the reasons for using them dramatically.
if you think it's smart policy, why would you vote for Kerry if he starts talking about this "smart policy"?
It clearly says the it could indeed happen...
Simply having nuclear weapons says it could happen.
a change in our long-standing policy that makess it's possibility more likely, not less.
Well, Russia isn't the beast it once was, and it doesn't really make sense to have them pointed at Canada & Mexico instead.
so, you aren't even gonna wait for GW, you are gonna start talking like that yourself.
Sorry Crabby, but it makes sense to point them at our and the worlds biggest threats.
Russia isn't the threat it once was, those other nations are.
it doesn't make sense to point them at anyone.
ask the gun nuts...you don't point a weapon at someone unless you are prepared to use it.
even when Russia was, our stance toward using them wasn't as liberal.
it doesn't make sense to point them at anyone.
What world to you live in?
ask the gun nuts...you don't point a weapon at someone unless you are prepared to use it.
Exactly.
We're telling those nations, don't even think about it, or we'll pull the trigger.
That's been our nuclear policy my entire life.
That hasn't changed one bit.
so, you are prepared to drop one on Iraq if things don't improve there...if the new government there attacks Isreal, say.
so why would you vote for Kerry if Bush starts talking like this?
even when Russia was, our stance toward using them wasn't as liberal.
Your doom & gloom article from "Council for a Livable World" is two years old.
I'm surprised we haven't destroyed the world yet.
one country at a time.
so, you are prepared to drop one on Iraq if things don't improve there...if the new government there attacks Isreal, say.
If they attack Israel? As a last resort, yes.
so why would you vote for Kerry if Bush starts talking like this?
There's a difference between setting policy, and actually pushing for a nuclear war.
You have to really stretch to see this as the first step towards armageddon.
THX 1138 6/4/04 7:10am
Wish I was going. I'm helping my Brother pour a sidewalk and a slab for a shed.
Tip: If someone calls and asks if you know anything about concrete the answer should always be NO!
Luv2Fly 6/4/04 7:40am
That sucks! I was gonna invite ya over if you were gonna be in the neighborhood.
THX 1138 6/4/04 7:47am
Sounds like fun but I'll be enjoying lugging 60 wheelbarrow loads of heavy wet concrete, then after that for kicks we get to float it and trowel it. Yeeeehaaaaw. The only good part is that now he owes me big time :) And the house is going to need painting this year.
The only good part is that now he owes me big time :)
LOL! I must owe my Dad a new house by now.
And the house is going to need painting this year.
Three words: "Rent a sprayer".
It saves you tons of work, and tons of time.
And the house is going to need painting this year.
Uhm, I do not know anything about painting...but it sounds like THX knows a lot about it.
Bush has a nuke policy and the libs bitch.
Bush has no policy (they say) for Iraq and the libs bitch....Amazing!
If Bush has a plan, it's bad. If Bush doesn't have a plan, it's bad.
I read the letters to the editor. This one is by Thomas Nelson of Freeport, NY, and addressed to the Public Editor of the New York Times.
"We need to state some unpleasant truths if we are to develop a set of workable standards for these times. The fact is that we are engaged in a real war. Our foe has been quite clear in stating the intention to eliminate us.
"Seeking out and presenting the opposing position may be good journalism in peacetime, but in wartime it is beyond inappropriate. It bestows the enemy position with a spurious claim to have some sort of equivalence. History clearly teaches that normal rules must be adjusted in abnormal situations. Are you and the The Times going to accommodate that reality?"
New VDH parody:
Moveon.org: Maybe now the American people will finally grow up when they see their children slaughtered on a French beach and huddled in hedgerows waiting to die. But what they don’t know is that thousands of poor conscripted Russians and eastern Europeans were innocent targets whom our boys killed on so-called D-Day. And does America want to deal with the five thousand French civilians who died in our secret bombing campaign before the invasion? Let those who said we’d be greeted with roses explain the charred bodies of women and children to the French public.
Noam Chomsky: It is well recognized that there is already a pipeline across the Channel. On good authority we know that petroleum is already flowing to this new captive European market. As leading scholars have pointed out, to understand the barbarism at Normandy one must learn about Standard Oil and British Petroleum—and the Rockefeller-Ford nexus.
General Zinni: Too few troops. No harbors. Inadequate equipment. Hare-brained glider landings. Add that up and you get the disaster we are in now. Count how many tanks made it to the beach. All this fancy new airborne stuff, the floating tanks, the engineers are no substitute for boots on the ground. Ask a Mark Clark or other great generals privately what they think of Marshall and you’ll get an ear full. Some day the American people will learn the real reason why we switched over to landing on the beaches in Europe. Read my book.
General Odom: Get out now. Cut your losses. Leave that pocket. Amphibious landings are bad ideas. Night air-drops are lunatic. No plan to deal with the follow up. Too few troops to break out. No help from the so-called French resistance. Who thought this up? Pull out, regroup and ask who is our real enemy in this war and how we can better attack him. I was under the impression that the Japanese, not the Germans, bombed Pearl Harbor.
Ted Koppel: Tonight I will read the names of the dead of the 101st Airborne, tomorrow the 82nd. Have patience with us. There really are thousands of American casualties—and this was just on the first day of what we know is more to come later this month. And while our leaders don’t wish to deal with it, we at ABC do—and think you do as well.
more...
http://victorhanson.com/Articles/Private%20Papers/Normandy.html
...and the questioning would have been for the good.
What would you prefer Mr. or Ms. 314159?
And does Iraq compare to WW II? if the answer is yes, I don't notice the stateside sacrifice.
Is anyone carrying ration coupons to Target or Tires Plus?
During WW II, Picasso couldn't even get canvas to paint. So he painted on plywood.
It's Mr.
Iraq has been a cakewalk compared to any war, possibly ever.
The problem is that 'we' don't understand prior sacrifice.
Iraq, by any standard, is an amazing success. By Iraq-2003 standards, Normandy was a pathetic failure. Normandy was a wise move.
:-)
I don't think the two wars are comparable. And if we are now in WW III there's different requirements from everywhere. The columnist is off base.
You are just baiting me here.
The Cold War was WW3.
We won.
WW4 is WOT.
Who is on first?
Anyway, the point of the columnist to me is: that if the invasion took place today, there would be criticism of a certain level. Maybe there was then. I would hope there was. And I would hope that military brass at the time would be big enough people to take it. For the most part, they seem to have that ability now.
Maybe Iraq will be successful. I don't know that and neither do you. But there's nothing wrong with the scrutiny.
I liked your post, 314159.
I think what the writer is asking is for perspective. To do what we did and are doing in Iraq, to mobilize the forces we did, engage and defeat another army in the stunningly short time without a sustained air campaign. Occupy and simutaneously try to rebuild, promote democracy in a country where the concept was foreign for 30 years, placate the people. Facilitate all the different factions ethnicities and religious backgrounds. Rebuild the infastructure that was decimated through years of willfull neglect. And to rebuild a shattered Iraqi pschye without bruising it is a huge task. Is it complete? No, but in one years time to do what we have done is nothing short of amazing. Are there setbacks? Yep, obstacles, check. Mistakes, yep, always will be, we're human.
Was there critiscism of Ike's plan? Sure. Because the task was so daunting and the risks so great many assumed it was destined to fail. But it beat the option of attacking at Calais where the Germans were positive we would attack and planned likewise. We had to make our own ports for God's sake. So was it risky, absolutelty, that's where leadership comes in. Now were there the cries from the armchairs and media people ? Not much from what I've read.
Perhaps it was because they, unlike some were able to see the big picture. In the battle of Normandy, 237,000 allied soldiers were killed wounded or captured between June 6th and August 29th when they were able to break from Cherbourg. and liberate Paris. http://www.edmondsun.com/Krt/dday/html/2b.htm
And the invasion force? It was made up of essentially 3 nations. The US, the Brits and the Aussies. Hmm, sounds familiar.
That's right 237,000 in 3 months and that was just the allies. estimates are as high as 400,00 for the Germans. Not to mention the civilain population. After 3 months and 237,000 casualties we only occupied a portion of France, not all of it even. We had 6,400 dead and a total of over 28,000 wounded at Iwo Jima after a few weeks all for a tiny island.
What or how would we react to that today ? I don't know and I don't think I want to. We've become a society of instant gratification. We expect things perhaps effortlessly and without too much loss. Add water set power to 100% for 30 seconds an voila, instant middle eastern democracy. People couldn't wait to scream quagmire, Vietnam! after 1 week. 1 week for heavan's sake after the largest and most swift advance of any military force in history.
Does it mean some criticsm isn't warranted ? Sure, that's the way it works. There is however a difference between real concern or criticism and wanting something to fail to score points or say, I told you so or out of some twisted agenda. Leadership does demand changing course sometimes. But it also means sticking to your principles and plan when others around you are loudest in their criticism and things look their worst. There were people afterall in this nation who didn't want to go after Germany as well. They were mad and wanted only to go after the Japs because they were the ones we were really pissed at. They couldn't see why we were spending resources going after Germany. But FDR made a promise to Churchill that we would pour most of our resources at first into taking out Germany and Italy and then the Japs. Think he wasn't criticized for that? He was. But he was also right in that decsision. Do people today think it was a bad idea to take out Hitler and co. ? I doubt it. And I think 20 or 30 years from now we'll look back and say this was the right call too. Yes the jury is still out and anything can happen as Rick said. So perhaps people ought to think about what would help it fail and assess their motives if they really want it to succeed and keep things in perspective. The ship is sailed and we're there like it or not. We all have a stake in the outcome.
Luv2Fly 6/7/04 9:56pm
Excellent post Rob.
Rich T 6/7/04 9:57pm
Thanks Rich.
What are you doing up? I made the mistake of drinking half a pot of what I thought was decaff coffe. then I looked at the label. Oops. I will be paying dealry tomorrow.
Luv2Fly 6/7/04 10:03pm
Ouch on the non-decaff.
I'm usually up until about 2 am eastern time.
Rich T 6/7/04 10:04pm
Night Owl eh?
I do my best work at night.
Von Johnson 6/7/04 10:05pm
Not really. I get off work at 10 pm and I stay up for a while after I get home.
I have to be up in a little over 5 hours. Ugh.
Luv2Fly 6/7/04 10:10pm
Bummer.
But the big question is: Is our effort in Iraq morally justified? Indeed it is. And it’s the front line of our war against terror.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/cc20040610.shtml
W.M.D's.
Remind you of what you said? That's what I was asking. I had no idea where it even came from and you throw out yet another witty fuck you comment so I was asking what is was about, if you don't even remember I can't help you. Geez.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38532
Well Bill, 11 0ut of the 20 men in a picture of Kerry's crew do NOT want to be used in his campaign photo. 2 are dead, 4 have had no comment and only 2 appear to support him.
Oh and here.
Nineteen of the 23 officers who served with Kerry in Vietnam had signed the letter so far, as had nearly every officer who commanded Kerry for any substantial period of time, including retired Coast Guard Capt. Adrian Lonsdale, retired Navy Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, retired Lt. Cmdr. George Elliot, and retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard.
"It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war," the letter reads.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=3838
You said there was 11 people there in Mpls who served with Kerry. I asked you for something on that. I'll stand by, kinda.
Another good one from SDB:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/Reaganthemultilateralpeac.shtml
There's no question that we are the good guys in Iraq, just as we were in South Vietnam, Korea, and during World War II. All of those conflicts were fought to keep people free. But many ignorant people think we're the bad guys.
Â
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122820,00.html
I will set you free, Saddam!
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Â
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/
I think we are, for various reasons, loath to talk about the role of religion in this war. And it's not to criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax."
What does he propose ? Simply calling for a war against Muslims ? Sure it's about religion, but it's about the twisting of a religion to kill in it's name. It's un P.C to say it's a war against Islam but it is I guess it's a war against fanatical Islam if you want to call it that. Big difference IMHO. There are many moderate Muslims and people who want what evey other person in the world desires. We are changing the way we're dealing with them. Instead of launching a few missles or treating it as law enforcement we are going into their home turf to try and bring about change to the system that produces animals that would behead someone for being the wrong faith or ethnicity.
Here you go.
1. http://denbeste.nu/cd_Articles/TheEssentialLibrary.shtml
2. http://denbeste.nu/external/Harari01.html
Read two first.
Also...
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/
:-)
The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement, but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement, but they also do not stand up against it.
They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
Good points.
Â
There's some good stuff on Phil's links.
A terrorist thug meets his maker after he decides to try and kill some of our troops by kneeeling in the middle of the street to fire his RPG at coalition troops. May he rot in hell.
WARNING THIS IS GRPAHIC> DO NOT VIEW IT IF YOU THINK YOU"LL BE OFFENDED.
http://www.kimmershow.com/SupportFiles/Scripts/FileTamer.asp?FileID=1339
WOW!
Hell yeah!
The quick & the dead.
Kill or be killed.
I love it!