[CLUE-Talk] The military takes a cue from Microsoft

[G. Richard Raab]

On Monday 13 October 2003 08:47 pm, Jed S. Baer wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2003 09:03:59 -0600
>
> "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" <jzb at dissociatedpress.net> wrote:
> > Some of the soldiers haven't even seen these letters -- some admitted to
> > signing a letter like this, and some say they agree with the sentiment,
> > but hadn't seen the letter previously nor had they signed it.
>
> Also, from the discussion over at TalkLeft, from the Mil. regs:
>
> <quote>
> A member on active duty may:
>
> ...
>
> 6. Write a letter to the editor of a newspaper expressing the member's
> personal views on public issues or political candidates, if such action is
> not part of an organized letter-writing campaign or concerted solicitation
> of votes for or against a political party or partisan political cause or
> candidate.
> </quote>
>
> Sounds as if the Colonel messed up here.
>
> jed

Personally, I have little problem that except for the simply problem that 
letters were sent where several soldiers did not sign it, read it, or 
acknowledge it. It was only upon it being mentioned to them, did they know 
about it. That sounds way off.

Don't get me wrong. If the colonel did it, it was wrong. But I am not 
convinced that he did it. One of the things that I have noticed is that this 
admin is busy blaming black-ops, the military, and everybody else except for 
themselves.

BTW, as to the earlier discussion about WMDs, do any of you honestly believe 
that Sadaam was not busy producing biologicals or chemicals weapons? If so, 
you are only kidding your self. It is trivial to produce biologicals and 
there is a huge number of countries and entities out there doing so. In fact, 
N. Korea from what I have heard is now a huge producer, for the time that we 
launch an invasion.
As to chemicals, while I have never studied or worked with the production of 
such (as opposed to biologicals), I understand that it is fairly easy to 
produce a number of them. Do not kid your self. Sadaam was producing these.

But then again, so is just about every nation on this planet. Both of these 
are way too easy.

As to Nuclear, well that is a different matter. W. produced no credible 
evidence. He was warned not to mention it in his state of the union, yet he 
did so. He then blamed the black-ops in spite of the fact that they told him 
not to (just like he did for 9/11). There is not one shred of evidence in 
existence (at least shown yet), that would back up his statements. However, 
it was known before the Iraq escalation that N. Korea was producing and quite 
possible had several.
In addition, NK has the ability to hit at least California and possibly into 
NORAD (Note: that is front range. Colorado). That makes NK a clear and 
present danger whereas Iraq was not even on the radar. To make matters more 
interesting, W. et. al. have made statements that Sadaam has been working 
with Al Qaeda esp on the matters of biologicals and chemicals. Al Qaeda has 
been very opposed to Sadaam. In fact, Al Qaeda has been working with our 
supposed allies to produce these. Anybody remember the CNN tapes of Al Qaeda 
gassing the lab puppy with sarin? That was in Northern Iraq. With the kurds. 
Not with Sadaam.

Finally, what are the differences between Iraq and Afghanstan
(BTW, a good source for these is www.cia.gov)?

Afghanstan is bigger that Iraq. More terroritory to search.
Afghanstan is mountainous while Iraq is desert. Afghanstan is much easier to 
hide in.
Afghanstan has more people. Much easier for Taliban/Al Qaeda to blend in with.
Afghanstan had more people who support the return of Al Qada than people in  
Iraq support the return of Sadaam (that is now changing).
Afghanstan has had much larger weapons caches found than were found in Iraq 
(most likely due to GWI and the supsequent blockade).
Afghanstan has very large and porous borders to a nation that up until 2 weeks 
ago was very neutral towards Taliban/Al Qadea.
So with that in mind, exactly why were we able to get in and out of 
afghanstan, but now we are mired in a 'nam style war.  
With troops that were trained to capture an area, not hold it?

What is different about Iraq that requires our staying there?
Why do we ignore a clear and present danger such as NK?
How were we able to go in and get out of afghanstan, but not in Iraq?
What requires billions of dollars rebuilding but a society such as afghanstan 
does not?


-- 
cheers
g.r.r.