New newsgroup.....

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:53:37 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , David J
Taylor
writes
New newsgroup....

rec.photo.digital.politics

At least, I feel we would benefit for a separate place for all the
political discussions! They are out of place here, I feel.

David


We could ban Americans. They are the main culprits. It is usually local
US politics that come up and this is an international group.

So says the primary contributor to threads on American political
issues.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:53:37 +0100, Chris H
wrote:

In message , David J
Taylor
writes
New newsgroup....

rec.photo.digital.politics

At least, I feel we would benefit for a separate place for all the
political discussions! They are out of place here, I feel.

David

We could ban Americans. They are the main culprits. It is usually local
US politics that come up and this is an international group.

So says the primary contributor to threads on American political
issues.

And the chief "contributor" to Yankee bashing.

Oh, the irony.

--
john mcwilliams

Right On....

Three little questions for the clueless....

Q1 What does the "rec" mean?
Q2 What does the "photo" mean?
Q3 What does the "digital" mean?

And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry me a
little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
their own young men killed with no result, and STILL can't learn their
lesson when they then go to war over a country where both the British Raj
(at the height of their power) and the mighty Russia were soundly thrashed.

Now you've got ME doing it! But... Hey.... let's ALL get back to rec AND
photo AND digital.

wrote:


And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry me a
little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
their own young men killed with no result,

in case you don;t know ... which is apparently true ...
we (the USA) WON the Vietnam war quite decisevely ... their generals
have since made this quite clear. They (the North Vietnamese)
we defeated, done, finished. They (the generals) were delighted
when, this done, we simply left and allowed them to come back and win.
They were in fact stupefied ... they though us utterly stupid
to do that (we win and then simply leave and allow then to come
back and they win). They were, of course, right .... the left
wing in the US was and is stupid.


Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ...
wrote:

And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry me a
little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
their own young men killed with no result,

in case you don;t know ... which is apparently true ...
we (the USA) WON the Vietnam war quite decisevely ... their generals
have since made this quite clear. They (the North Vietnamese)
we defeated, done, finished. They (the generals) were delighted
when, this done, we simply left and allowed them to come back and win.
They were in fact stupefied ... they though us utterly stupid
to do that (we win and then simply leave and allow then to come
back and they win). They were, of course, right .... the left
wing in the US was and is stupid.

Doug McDonald

[Stupidly rising to the bait of what is likely a troll, or sarcasm...;-]
That sure is an "interesting" view of history! Glad I was not one
of the last to "willingly" leave Saigon when the "defeated" generals
(and their armies) were advancing through the city... But, I do
think that the Vietnam War (and the resultant subsidiary wars) and
the Iraq War (and, heck, the Spanish-American War) were rather
stupid and foolish endeavors, not at all worth the costs. As far as
Afghanistan is concerned, this now looks like a very difficult situation,
but one that can be justified fighting given that an attack was launched
on the US from there. Too bad "W" dropped the ball (while having
the Taliban and "friends" on the run) when he stopped to invade Iraq
instead of relatively easily finishing the job in Afghanistan. The
"xxxx-xxxx" (nasty name I call him in private, deleted...)!
--DR

In message , Doug McDonald mcdonald@scs
..uiuc.edu.remove.invalid writes
wrote:

And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry
me a
little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
their own young men killed with no result,

in case you don;t know ... which is apparently true ...
we (the USA) WON the Vietnam war quite decisevely ... their generals
have since made this quite clear.

That is why north Vietnam now runs south Vietnam... There is far more
to modern warfare than the battle field. The Result of the Vietnam war
was the USA LOST. At the end of the day none of the US political
objectives were met. The military is only there to enforce the political
objectives. Nothing else.

This is why the US won't win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The are using 20th
a century battle field military and mind set in a 21st century police
action.

This was well illustrated in Iraq when they won the battle field part on
the push to Baghdad very easily in 2 weeks and then spent the next 5
years loosing everything they had won.

With Afghanistan they never really completed the first phase.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , David Ruether
writes

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
wrote:

And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry me a
little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
their own young men killed with no result,

in case you don;t know ... which is apparently true ...
we (the USA) WON the Vietnam war quite decisevely ... their generals
have since made this quite clear. They (the North Vietnamese)
we defeated, done, finished. They (the generals) were delighted
when, this done, we simply left and allowed them to come back and win.
They were in fact stupefied ... they though us utterly stupid
to do that (we win and then simply leave and allow then to come
back and they win). They were, of course, right .... the left
wing in the US was and is stupid.

Doug McDonald

[Stupidly rising to the bait of what is likely a troll, or sarcasm...;-]
That sure is an "interesting" view of history! Glad I was not one
of the last to "willingly" leave Saigon when the "defeated" generals
(and their armies) were advancing through the city... But, I do
think that the Vietnam War (and the resultant subsidiary wars) and
the Iraq War (and, heck, the Spanish-American War) were rather
stupid and foolish endeavors, not at all worth the costs. As far as
Afghanistan is concerned, this now looks like a very difficult situation,
but one that can be justified fighting given that an attack was launched
on the US from there.

Actually from Saudi Arabia. Also whilst OBL, who is not an Afghan, may
have been in Afghanistan he was a Saudi. No *country* attacked the USA
and the US has never been able to show that OBL planned or directed the
9/11 attacks.

Too bad "W" dropped the ball (while having
the Taliban and "friends" on the run) when he stopped to invade Iraq
instead of relatively easily finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Problem was the US trained the Taliban and Al-qeada in the first place.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Chris H
writes
In message , David Ruether
writes

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...

Actually from Saudi Arabia. Also whilst OBL, who is not an Afghan, may
have been in Afghanistan he was a Saudi. No *country* attacked the USA
and the US has never been able to show that OBL planned or directed the
9/11 attacks.

Too bad "W" dropped the ball (while having
the Taliban and "friends" on the run) when he stopped to invade Iraq
instead of relatively easily finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Problem was the US trained the Taliban and Al-qeada in the first place.

And for that matter the USA trained the 9/11 pilots too.....

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:47:11 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , Doug McDonald mcdonald@scs
.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid writes
wrote:

And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry
me a
little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
their own young men killed with no result,

in case you don;t know ... which is apparently true ...
we (the USA) WON the Vietnam war quite decisevely ... their generals
have since made this quite clear.

That is why north Vietnam now runs south Vietnam... There is far more
to modern warfare than the battle field. The Result of the Vietnam war
was the USA LOST. At the end of the day none of the US political
objectives were met. The military is only there to enforce the political
objectives. Nothing else.

This is why the US won't win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The are using 20th
a century battle field military and mind set in a 21st century police
action.

This was well illustrated in Iraq when they won the battle field part on
the push to Baghdad very easily in 2 weeks and then spent the next 5
years loosing everything they had won.

With Afghanistan they never really completed the first phase.

Lord Louis Mountbatten was the Commander Far East at the end of the
2nd WW. As various countries were liberated it was his policy to hand
over the government to the party or organisation best able to govern.
When it came to Vietnam he wanted to hand it over to whatever the
organisation it was that was headed by Ho Chi Min. This was violently
opposed by Dulles on the ground that the organisation was communist
and in the furore Mountbatten lost his post and the government of the
country was handed over to ??? under the control of the French.

The French could not hold down the opposition to ??? and eventually
had to leave. The USA then came in and appointed a (non communist)
puppet government but, as we all know, they too were eventually kicked
out. Guess who ended up ruling the country? Ho Chi Min of course.

There is a moral to this, but the USA doesn't seem to have recognised
it as yet.




Eric Stevens

In message , Eric Stevens
writes
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:47:11 +0100, Chris H wrote:

In message , Doug McDonald mcdonald@scs
.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid writes
wrote:

And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry
me a
little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
their own young men killed with no result,

in case you don;t know ... which is apparently true ...
we (the USA) WON the Vietnam war quite decisevely ... their generals
have since made this quite clear.

That is why north Vietnam now runs south Vietnam... There is far more
to modern warfare than the battle field. The Result of the Vietnam war
was the USA LOST. At the end of the day none of the US political
objectives were met. The military is only there to enforce the political
objectives. Nothing else.

This is why the US won't win in Iraq and Afghanistan. The are using 20th
a century battle field military and mind set in a 21st century police
action.

This was well illustrated in Iraq when they won the battle field part on
the push to Baghdad very easily in 2 weeks and then spent the next 5
years loosing everything they had won.

With Afghanistan they never really completed the first phase.

Lord Louis Mountbatten was the Commander Far East at the end of the
2nd WW. As various countries were liberated it was his policy to hand
over the government to the party or organisation best able to govern.
When it came to Vietnam he wanted to hand it over to whatever the
organisation it was that was headed by Ho Chi Min. This was violently
opposed by Dulles on the ground that the organisation was communist
and in the furore Mountbatten lost his post and the government of the
country was handed over to ??? under the control of the French.

The French could not hold down the opposition to ??? and eventually
had to leave. The USA then came in and appointed a (non communist)
puppet government but, as we all know, they too were eventually kicked
out. Guess who ended up ruling the country? Ho Chi Min of course.

There is a moral to this, but the USA doesn't seem to have recognised
it as yet.

History will repeat itself in Afghanistan and Iraq where the US tried to
impose a pro US government.

It think the US's first choice of president for Iraq was some one the
Jordanians said they would arrest or get arrested if he came anywhere
near any county they had an extradition agreement with! The man was
apparently a blatant crook.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/