hope you are wrong but am afraid you are right.
  be carefull with the muscles tear. you do know that
stress makes the spasms worse. you may have job
related injury.

--- "Cleveland, Kyle E." <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> One of the top brass (don't know who it was, but it
> wasn't Tommy Franks)
> said that we may need 100K more troops for
> "pacification".  Hmmm...I believe
> that's what Bill Westmoreland said to Johnson in
> late '65 / early '66.  It
> wasn't Ia Drang (battle between 7th Air Cav. & NVA
> regulars) behind his call
> for more troops, but attrition of Marines near Da
> Nang by Viet Cong
> "sappers".  They would hit platoon/squad-sized
> patrols and then vanish into
> the bush before we could reply "in force".  Usually
> only one or two grunts a
> day were getting wasted at this point.  Sound
> familiar?
>
> Sorry, Mags, I think Ms. Lee is a knee-jerk pacifist
> and that Afghanistan
> NEEDED to be handled.  That's where we should have
> put large numbers of
> troops on the ground, offensively.  As it was, we
> put a couple thousand
> Special Forces operators (and a couple hundred
> Canadian counter-snipers) to
> work with Northern Alliance troops (same way we used
> SOG (Green Berets) to
> work with the Montagnard in 'Nam).  What happened?
> Bin Laden slipped
> through our fingers in Bora-Bora into Pakistan.  Bin
> Laden and the entire
> pan-Asian Al Queda network should have been
> emasculated before we ever
> thought about Sadaam.  Sure, Sadaam's a cruel,
> cunning, vicious dictator,
> but he was contained by the carrier task force in
> the Gulf..  The only
> trouble he might have started would have been with
> Israel, and the IDF could
> handle that.  Everyone was worried about Israel
> getting involved in a
> shooting war, but most folks equate the US with a
> Zionist Israel anyway, so
> why would it be better for America to throw the
> first punch?
>
> We are in deep Kim-Chee now.  We can't afford to
> stay in Iraq and we can't
> afford to leave.  We let our focus be taken away
> from the perpetrators of
> the 9/11 horror and placed on a low-level threat.
> Why?  Because our
> "leaders" on both sides of the aisle calculated the
> "politics" of the
> situation--they voted based on what they thought
> would get them re-elected
> (an "easy" victory in Iraq) rather than protecting
> the homeland.
>
> Kyle (who had such a bad spasm yesterday that he
> tore his left latissimus
> dorsi....ouch!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 1:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Quiz About 9/11
>
> <snip>
>
> We are running into even more problems in Iraq as
> more of our troops die
> in guerrilla attacks, our National Guard units over
> there get homesick
> and our RA and Marine troops get stressed out. Even
> the DoD has issued a
> report saying that if we don't get the lead out and
> get basic services
> back up and running and the government established
> in the next three
> months things will get even more chaotic over there.
>
> Doesn't anyone remember Vietnam any more?
>
> Kat


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com