This is serious!

http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i?ArtNum=24148

I'd be more worried if the Generals tried to take
over the government, like in the declining years of the
Roman Empire.

"Bob Crantz" wrote
http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...i?ArtNum=24148

I'd be more worried if the Generals tried to take
over the government, like in the declining years of the
Roman Empire.


I don't think there's a realistic prospect of that. At
least, not now.


Dave wrote:
I think the four retired generals writing in today's Journal got it right.
The ones carping are the generals who were on the losing end of the argument
over whether to stick with the conventional weapons of the past and WW II
strategies, or move to lighter more mobile forces to deal with a new type of
enemy.


Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they
tried to make a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.

Or do you think that Iraq situation is just fine & dandy?
Maybe you also have rosy words to share about the Bush
Administration's handling of Iran?


Change is difficult, and always puts somebody's nose out of joint in a
bureaucracy.

Especially when the change is predicted to be a disaster,
and turns out to be one.

DSK

Something must be up. In general, (pun aside) these are men of honor and
duty. The fact so many of them have spoken up (not a common occurence, ever)
says something is astray.

Did you know that the Rumsfield/Bush agenda was to REDUCE the size of the
beloved Marine Corps?

Has oil revenues from Iraq paid for the occupation? Remember, that was
Rumsfeld's plan.

Bush and the Bushbots are trigger happy, very quick to shoot the messenger.

Compassionate Conservative = Outspend the Liberals

Next stop - War with Iran!

Glory to God!

Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they
tried to make a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.


Dave wrote:
So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the past,
and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Yeah right, Dave. Attack that straw man. What did I say, or
do you even know?

The Pentagon war planners tried to take measures to prevent
the very instability which has occured. The Bush
Administration (more precisely, Cheney & Rumsfeld)
interfered with the chain of command, including firing
people (some of the disgruntled generals but not all), so as
to do away with this type of planning. They publicly scoffed
at the idea of planning for post-invasion security forces &
stabilizing the country.

Now they've been proven wrong, in a big way. So, shall we
learn from the mistakes and do better? Of course not! Why
bother when you can fling mud and insist it's all the fault
of those fag-loving libby-rull traitors?

DSK

Bob Crantz wrote:
Something must be up. In general, (pun aside) these are men of honor and
duty. The fact so many of them have spoken up (not a common occurence, ever)
says something is astray.


And while there has often been background grumbling about
mismanagement of a war, AFAIK there hasn't been so many
senior people agreeing on so much, so specifically.


Did you know that the Rumsfield/Bush agenda was to REDUCE the size of the
beloved Marine Corps?


They didn't think they needed 'em.


Has oil revenues from Iraq paid for the occupation? Remember, that was
Rumsfeld's plan.


Well, he got the idea from the "New American Century" guys
who were unabashed imperialists back in the 1990s. One of
the things they hate Clinton for is that they told him to
invade Iraq and he wouldn't listen.


Bush and the Bushbots are trigger happy, very quick to shoot the messenger.


That's because their aim is too poor to shoot the cause,
which is always further away.


Compassionate Conservative = Outspend the Liberals


On advertising.

Next stop - War with Iran!

Glory to God!


That's right, maybe we can reverse the age-old historic
dictum about getting involved in a land war in Asia.

DSK

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:49:27 -0400, DSK said:

Yeah, right. "Losing end of the argument" meaning that they
tried to make a realistic plan for Iraq and got fired for it.

So I take it you're a fan of sticking with conventional weapons of the
past,
and WWII strategies to meet current and future threats.

Japan and Germany were occupied by US forces and Democracy was installed in
each country.

How is this different from the current strategy?

Rumsfeld has twice offered his resignation to Bush.

Did he try to resign because he was doing an exemplary job?

Is Bush a dope?

Yeah right, Dave. Attack that straw man. What did I say, or
do you even know?


Dave wrote:
Hardly a straw man. The very point you were disputing.


Not at all.

The point I am disputing is that the Bush Administration has
ignored advice that turned out to be correct. Their answer
seems to be to shoot the messenger, or accuse the messenger
of not being patriotic. This has been repeated with energy
policy, foregin policy, economic policy, tax policy, etc etc
etc. Now it's the military's turn... and they have a much
more concrete grievance than most.


In my initial message I summarized the four generals who wrote the piece.
Here's the full quote:

"Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics
appears to stem from his efforts to 'transform' the military by moving to a
joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile"

Uh huh. Can we get a quote from the generals, wherein they
say that?

Sounds very much like a red herring in a straw man suit.

What I have heard from the generals is criticism of Vice
President Cheney's interference with the chain of command,
and Rumsfelds mismanagement of the post-war strategy.




You were disputing the four generals' position. IOW, while they were against
"conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and
World War II war-fighting strategies which proved practically useless
against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetrical warfare."
you were in favor of those things.

If you say so, Dave, then that must be right. Right?

DSK

Uh huh. Can we get a quote from the generals, wherein they
say that?


Dave wrote:
Er Doug.....

That _is_ a direct quote from the four Generals. They were the authors of
the piece.

I don't think so, it does not sound like what I have
read/heard from other sources. I bet this is some
pro-Bush/Cheney source putting words in their mouths so as
to discredit them... a popular game with Rush Limbaugh and
his many imitators on the right.

From what I have heard & read, the generals chief complaint
is that the Bush Adminstration ignored all serious advice
about planning for post-war Iraq and are now planning on
using the overstretched military to try & solve the problem
they have let fester with Iran for so long.

I though Bush & Cheney ran on a platform of rebuilding the
military, not relying on the Reserves for long-term
international security? What happened to their promises?

DSK