C-PALSY Archives

Cerebral Palsy List

C-PALSY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Cleveland, Kyle E." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
St. John's University Cerebral Palsy List
Date:
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 12:31:00 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2