Canadian flag on the backback myth

Bogart wrote:

The US won't "win"

Really? Where is Saddam? Where are the Sunni thugs who ruled that
country with an iron fist? Who makes up the new Iraqi government and
what are their goals? How many newspapers are now being published in
Baghdad free of censorship? How many women make up that new governing
council? How many young girls are for the first time going to school
in Iraq? How is it that Iraq now has more social infrastructure in
place than it ever did under Saddam? I understand you're mad. Rabid
dogs get mad. What I don't understand is your ignorance and your
willingness to spread it all over the world via the usenet.


My my, so this is your definition of winning. OK so the US finally got ****ed off at Saddam AFTER supporting him and giving him all those WMDs
to fight those dastardly Ayatollas ... Why did you let him go on for so long? Poor intellegence perhaps ;-) Your "leaders must be, well let
me put it bluntly STUPID!!

How can you be winning if so many people in Iraq are simply ****ed off at the US. Why in the hell would a "grateful population" allow
civilians to be captured and killed - and I mean civilians and aid workers, NOT JUST AMERICANS.

OK you are winning - by your definition. What an interesting win! What an interesting definition.

You mena no girls went ti school in Iraq while saddam was in power? Perhaps you are confusing Iraq with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

How are you comparing "more" social infrastructure in Iraq now as compared to post-invasion Iraq? What is your comparative data.

Why would I be mad at a blithering idiot? I pity your mental state. Yes, it is obvious that you are totally immersed in your own perception of
reality as far as the Us in Iraq is concerned. That is NOT my problem that you are in such a state of denial.

and will hand over the stinking mess they started (with their invasion) for someone else to deal with while at the same
time extolling their mattra "WE won the war!! WE won the war!! What revisionistic bull****.

Your superpower does not have the ability to create peace, just to "win" by killing all opposition and flattening the country. Kinda like
the German Panzer division did when they opened up on the Polish Calvary at the beginning of WW II. Even though they overran Poland they
had nothing but trouble for the rest of the "war". Then the Germans were defeated. The US won't win the peace offensive because they do
NOT have the capability. If they did have that capability why do they pass off the destroyed countryside to someone else AND ask them to
get involved in the peace process.

You need to look more closely at WW2 history. The two countries who
were the chief architects of WW2 - Germany and Japan were both leveled
by the United States and both rebuilt via the Marshal Plan into first
world countries by the same United States of America.


Oh, the USA won the war! More revisionist bull****. Why were RCAF, RAF, RAAF and RNZAF aircrews bombing the AXIS powers? For practice? Why are
there thousands of British, Canadian, French, Australian, New Zealand and other ALLIED soldiers buried all over this earth adjactent to or
near the cemetaries of AXIS warriors? Are they props for some movie like "Saving Pte Ryan?
You are truely full of ****! An enema won't help your addled misconception of reality. Guys like you must write revisionistic history
textbooks - like tose in japan that give the Japanese version of why they didn't do anything wrong...

You're such a dope you must be Canadian.

I assume you are living in the "Land of the Free" and thus are exercising your right to think as you wish. Yes, I do hold a Canadian passport
and was born in Canada.. Anything wrong with that?

David Smith wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

According to most Americans, you didn't lose the War of 1812 either.

The US didn't lose the War of 1812.

Sure you did. The US declared war on Britain and invaded Canada, but
were unsuccessful. After several attempts to achieve their objective
they gave up. So I guess your idea of a victory in that conflict, like
Vietnam, is gathering up your troops and running home.

The purpose of the war was to stop British impression of US sailors. This
was accomplished. The war was a successful defense of American rights,
culminating in the victory at New Orleans. Because New Orleans was
successfully defended, American expansion into the Southwest was
possible. Neither side lost territory.

David Smith wrote in
:

Xomicron wrote:

The United States did not suffer a military defeat in Vietnam. The
American military was the supreme force in Vietnam. Just look at the
kill ratios.

Look at the kill ration between the Germans and the Russians in WW II.
By your standards, Germany must have won that one. For a better idea
of who won a war, just look at whose flag is flying in Vietnam.

The US withdrew because the politicians were unwilling to commit to
doing what was needed to totally defeat the enemy.

Okay. They failed to defeat the enemy. How does that translate to a
voctory?

I never said the US was victorious. I said they weren't defeated militarily.

(sneakysneak) wrote in
om:

Xomicron wrote in message
...

No, it isn't, but yours is from a well known homosexual.

Funny...I never met your father.

The US has the potential to be, but we prefer to use up everyone
else's oil first.

Bull****...the War on Iraq was just as much about oil as it was
about redrawing the Middle Eastern map and regime change.

So where's all that oil from Iraq?

Bogart wrote:

Throwing in comments about Vietnam doesn't answer the questions and
doesn't divert the subject away from Ken Pisichko's inability to
respond. But I'm sure he appreciate your feeble attempts to save his
embarrassment.

Look you revisionistic stupid asshole, I have more to do than just hang around reading your demented ideas of how your country is winning the war
by killing lots of innocent civilians (shades of My Lai) and then suggesting to the readership that such actions speak of some moral high ground.

What bull****!

By the way, my dog needed a walk. I am sure he left your dispicable likeness in the forest where we walked. That is only my opinion, but I know
you are still infesting this particular ng with your revisionistic babble.

So be it. You can do that. After all, you live in the "Land of the Free", and keep giving the rest of the world utter crap about YOUR moral high
ground. Not!

Wonder if you will still be able to do that during the next freak power outage in the USA brought on by your ill-maintained power grid. Then most
likely, your country will blame Canada or some terrorist groups for your troubles of your own creatinn - just like your country did last time
(last summer. Can you remember that far back??)

Shove your revisionistic crap someplace else -preferrably in some nice forest in your state.

Ken Pisichko wrote in :

Bogart wrote:

The US won't "win"

Really? Where is Saddam? Where are the Sunni thugs who ruled that
country with an iron fist? Who makes up the new Iraqi government and
what are their goals? How many newspapers are now being published in
Baghdad free of censorship? How many women make up that new governing
council? How many young girls are for the first time going to school
in Iraq? How is it that Iraq now has more social infrastructure in
place than it ever did under Saddam? I understand you're mad. Rabid
dogs get mad. What I don't understand is your ignorance and your
willingness to spread it all over the world via the usenet.


My my, so this is your definition of winning. OK so the US finally got
****ed off at Saddam AFTER supporting him and giving him all those WMDs
to fight those dastardly Ayatollas ... Why did you let him go on for so
long?

Ask Bill Clinton.

and will hand over the stinking mess they started (with their
invasion) for someone else to deal with while at the same time
extolling their mattra "WE won the war!! WE won the war!! What
revisionistic bull****.

Your superpower does not have the ability to create peace, just to
"win" by killing all opposition and flattening the country. Kinda like
the German Panzer division did when they opened up on the Polish
Calvary at the beginning of WW II. Even though they overran Poland
they had nothing but trouble for the rest of the "war". Then the
Germans were defeated. The US won't win the peace offensive because
they do NOT have the capability. If they did have that capability why
do they pass off the destroyed countryside to someone else AND ask
them to get involved in the peace process.

You need to look more closely at WW2 history. The two countries who
were the chief architects of WW2 - Germany and Japan were both leveled
by the United States and both rebuilt via the Marshal Plan into first
world countries by the same United States of America.

Oh, the USA won the war! More revisionist bull****. Why were RCAF, RAF,
RAAF and RNZAF aircrews bombing the AXIS powers? For practice? Why are
there thousands of British, Canadian, French, Australian, New Zealand
and other ALLIED soldiers buried all over this earth adjactent to or
near the cemetaries of AXIS warriors?

They weren't accomplishing much until the Americans arrived.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:16:10 +0000, Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:15:44 -0400, David Smith
wrote:

Xomicron wrote:


these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Nice exercise in semantics. The US did not lose a war in Vietnam
because they have decided that technically it was not a war, presumably?

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

Yep. After failing to achieve a military victory
Name one battle lost by US forces in Vietnam.

Losing the war as a whole and limping hime with your tail between your
legs isn't good enough for you?

(BTW, get ready for more of the same mewdicine in Iraq. Seems you guys
get to relearn the limits of military power every generation.)

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:04:20 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

The United States did not suffer a military defeat in Vietnam. The American
military was the supreme force in Vietnam. Just look at the kill ratios.

The US withdrew because the politicians were unwilling to commit to doing
what was needed to totally defeat the enemy.

As Clausewitz said, war is just an extension of politics. Sure you could
have nuked Vietnam. Some vicotry that would have been.

Bottom line, you lost in vietnam. There was no way the US could attain
ill-formulated goals based upon some sort of an laternate reality model.
Just like the Iraq mess BTW.

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:01:22 +0000, Xomicron wrote:

A brief refresher:

All Canadians are arrogant pigs.

You forgot to add "liberal" somewhere in there, I think.

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:37:47 -0500, Ken Pisichko wrote:

Xomicron wrote:

The US didn't lose the War of 1812.

Are you saying or intimating that the US won it??

Depends whose textbooks you read. You should get your head around properly
but first read some Japanese textbooks regarding THEIR version of WW II.
That explains your ****ed up ideas.

Your revisionist attitude is quite evident. Too bad you don't even understand the falsehood you are living. So be it - especially if you
live in the Land of the Free. Trouble is you try to foist such mythology on the rest of the world. But that is typical of how the 'Mercian
vision of (their) democracy in infused elsewhere - like in Iraq.

Don't you get it? What works in the USA won't work in a country which has different values, mores and folkways. So much for "swinus
Americanus".