rec.autos.simulators

Andrew McP

Reply to the business end of my post, Mitch.

Jan.
=---

Bruce

With 20/20 hindsight history still shows that the U.S. military forces did a great job in Vietnam against guerilla warriors despite the political upheaval and lack of battlefield doctrine for jungle warfare.   The US did not lose a single major battle in Vietnam (you can look that up) - the war was lost on the political side.   Would you not say that the military did a great job despite the lack of support for it?

The Iraq war isn't likely to be lost on the political side even though the approval ratings are down.  The reason is that most reasonable politicians realize that the fight for Iraq is now the main battle ground against Al Qaeda.  Only the fringes of the left-wing call fail to see this and call for a pullout. (The people who generally get the most air time on the news here)

I don't know Russian politics well so I won't comment.

Wag

  I have a funny feeling of deja vu coming over me. (Cue "Twilight Zone" theme)

  Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and, I think, Leonard V. Brezhnev all said something similar in times past.
  In fact, didn't King George say much the same around 1775?

  BK

    So given the nature of the enemy, we're doing a fine job in Iraq.

It wasn't all about the WMDs - that's how it was sold to the public to garner support.  Ironically, all of the major intelligence agencies agreed with that assessment and I believe our government made a mistake in selling it that way because they thought it was a sure thing (just like everyone else did).  BTW, ask the Russians where it went - they supposedly helped to transport it out to Syria in 2001.

I believe, and several recent books support my belief, that the war is one whose main goal was to drive out a dictator and replace it with a democracy that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East.  The strategic location of the land should not be dismissed though either.   It's geographic location and energy resources made it more important than, then say, Syria in the war on terror.

If you are speaking of the Shah of Iran, I agree with you.  Our past foreign policy failures are a disgrace.  They had been lacking any long-term continuity or m***basis.  There are so many holes you could poke in the policies from the recent past that you'll get no argument here.  

I think the main difference with us bringing it now is that the war was brought to us and so public support has allowed for the policies to shift.   Not so when they attacked our embassies in '96 for example.

Wag

  >3)  Most importantly...

  But I thought it was all about WMDs?

  >Do you not realize that being in Iraq gives us the ability to having forward staging bases in order > to attack Iran

  Too bad the appreciation for democracy wasn't discovered when the Shaw
  (sp?) was in power

  "B Wegner" wrote...

  Ah... but before reality filtered back to the US, democracy was going to
  restored by January last year and the barbarians were an oppressed people
  who'd only be too happy to be liberated by the US army.

  It's just the poor and inaccurate way our government sold this war.  The sad part is that honesty would have worked better.

  Certainly that was the impression I got from Mitch as he brushed aside my
  misgivings with regard to the invasion and therefore I attempted to rub his
  face in it a little.

  I'm not speaking for Mitch, he's entitled to his opinion just the same as we are.  I now see the logic in your response.  Although you didn't need to rub his face in it.  You're a better person than that even if I disagree with you on virtually everything :)

  So, apologies, I wasn't expecting anyone to attempt a reasonable response.
  Seeing as this whole deal has gone far enough off topic already, I won't
  enter into public exchange with you. Feel free to decipher my spamblock if
  you're interested in an exchange of opinion.

  That's for sure - F1 qualifying to political flame-fest.  LOL!  If we can't get along or agree to disagree then we're really up shits creek without a paddle because the terrorists will use it to drive a wedge between us.

  Wag

  Jan.
  =---

No shit - these so-called reality shows make me sick - talk about mid-numbing.

  >I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce
  >The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong.

  For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with
  Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust".  I imagine it's
  the same on the other side of the pond.

  It costs less to put together a ***show that appeals to the masses
  then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer...   lowest common
  denomotaer marketing.

1)  The Shield
2)  24
3) Prison Break
4) CSI
5)  Anything Motorsports related

Wag

  Is anyone else bored to death with that new show Howie Mandell is hosting?

  It would be fun.  IF it moved along about 200% faster.  Jeez....

  For me, my favorites are:

  1.  24.  C'mon, you KNOW you love it ;)
  2.  Lost.
  3.  Sopranos.
  4.  Deadwood (Brilliant show).
  5.  CSI, when it's a good episode.
  6.  Crossing Jordan.
  7.  Tripping The Rift.

  -Larry

  > >I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce
  >>The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong.
  >
  > For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with
  > Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust".  I imagine it's
  > the same on the other side of the pond.
  >
  > It costs less to put together a ***show that appeals to the masses
  > then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer...   lowest common
  > denomotaer marketing.
  >

It's similar to Taiwan now. If they think the US will protect them if China
invades, they're in for a big surprise.

ps If the politicians would just declare war (something the US has not done
since WW2) and then step aside and let the military do it's job, the war in
Vietnam would have been over years before the US withdrew.

  Remember too,  that Senator Kennedy got all funding for support of the
South Vietnamese cut off.  So no more American bullets for the guns they
had,  no more fuel for the jets they flew,  no more repairs for the
American tanks we'd given them.  Truly, even with continued funding, SVN
was not capable of stopping the Northerners...but we seemed to do
everything possible to hasten the end.
dave henrie

BTW, the birth of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community, a baby
European Union), occured only 6 years after the war which was quite a
feat considering centuries of animosity between european nation-states.

Having said that, I don't think it makes much sense to compare Iraq to
Europe or Japan after WWII, or to Vietnam.  As I said before Operation
Iraqi Freedom, think about another Lebanon (in the 80's). In fact, the
analogy is even more accurate today: you just have to replace Israel by
the US and Syria by Iran.

In any case, I blame Eccelstone for this thread.

Regards,
Mr. Sylvestre

Have you ever thought of starting a blog ? Please, do.

Mr. S.

-Larry

The latest SciFi channel trio aren't bad either, but their seasons are too
damned short.

-Larry

-Larry