|
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ? wrote: On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter, which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider. Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little deeper on your side. Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim that the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when Bush was IN office? |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:41:59 -0400, wrote: I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora Bora. we failed in TB because scum bag bush refused to send in US troops when we had osama cornered. the 'new republic' had an excellent article earlier this year on this exact event I don't think BL was going to stay put for the month or two it would take to safely deploy a division. We saw what happens when you don't do the groundwork in Somalia. This started as a quiet hit on Bin Laden but by the time he got to Tora Bora that was not going to work. Bush didn't want another war. Come on. We had him in a corner. We just needed to finish the job, but instead we handed off the responsibility to paid thugs who let him go. Bush didn't want another war? Are you sure? After all, he was "listening" to his generals (until they contradicted Rumsfeld anyway). |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:37:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed. Untrue. They may not have participated in the planning, but they refused to give up bin laden, etc. They didn't "simply travel" through. They took over and their extremist views allowed bin laden's crowd to have a safe-haven. Don't try and rewrite Bush's failures. So what are you going to do about Pakistan where he has done the same thing? You're claiming BL is in charge in Pakistan? Well, that's news to the Pakistanis! Anyone who thinks Karzai or the Junta de jour in Pakistan actually has much influence in the tribal areas is deluded. Which make up (in Pakistan) a relatively small area. The "Countries" we are trying to ally with are so corrupt any deal we may hammer out with them is just a love letter in the sand, to be wiped out with the next tide. And, your solution is.... isolationism? I think we tried that. It is possible to lose the whore region and then we would cause problems for India, Israel and most of the rest of the world. Whore region? :) Well, sure there would be problems.... |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:41:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I agree with Harry on this one. Generals are hammers, all problems look like nails to them. Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"? Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war. I see the same thing in our military policy. That's why it's fortunate that the military are under civilian control. Not to beat it to death, but that's why McCrystal was booted. McChrystal was booted for letting his staff talk too much. Obama says there were no real policy differences between them. This is not Truman MacArthur And for him talking to much.... which usurps Presidential (civilian) authority. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:00:54 -0400, John H wrote: Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"? Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war. I see the same thing in our military policy. No one would deny that the job of Generals is to fight wars. Do you deny that they are controlled by politicians? If we are in Afghanistan another ten years, it will be because Presidents wanted us there. -- With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no authority to question the objective of the mission. Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no authority to question the objective of the mission. Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked. Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the military. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no authority to question the objective of the mission. Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked. Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the military. So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military situation, the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest opinion. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the military. So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military situation, the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest opinion. Giving an assessment is not the same thing as offering an opinion. An assessment is a highly structured process based on underlying factual data and probability analysis. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Harry " wrote in message m... On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote: On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote: ...it is out to **** us all...forever... General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine years. - - - These whores will do anything to stay in uniform. Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply to one of your posts. Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid, ****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're wrong. It was. Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there. General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it. Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that 'wouldn't work' but did? OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid again. Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to one of my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville. The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay in uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to keep themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should the amount of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex. The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war and the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a lesser degree, George H.W. Bush. There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was. The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart once we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger with close ties to some ayatollah. The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it didn't, half of its officers would be mustered out to become substitute teachers. Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the other way around. Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander in Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders. In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his military advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame. This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities. GTMO is still operating. A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed. We are still in Iraq. We are escalating in Afghanistan. I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you? CC |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3 People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never "conquered". tell it to ghengis khan That is not history, that is legend and folk lore. We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be descendants of the Khan army. we you kind of disproved your own point. if we dont know who conquered afghanistan, then you can't say it's never been conquered, can you? Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you could say we are fighting Ghengis could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it? Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization. They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the civilization is long gone. Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working definition of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal and ethnic. There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real nation as there is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the No-Tell Motel with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson. We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country into a nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's none with the Afghanis. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3 People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never "conquered". tell it to ghengis khan That is not history, that is legend and folk lore. We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be descendants of the Khan army. we you kind of disproved your own point. if we dont know who conquered afghanistan, then you can't say it's never been conquered, can you? Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you could say we are fighting Ghengis could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it? Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization. They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the civilization is long gone. Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working definition of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal and ethnic. There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real nation as there is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the No-Tell Motel with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson. We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country into a nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's none with the Afghanis. That settles it then. Get our troops out and bomp the place into a sheet of glass. Pass the word on to Obammy, Krause and lets get started. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On 7/12/10 9:14 AM, Harold' wrote:
"Harry wrote in message m... On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3 People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never "conquered". tell it to ghengis khan That is not history, that is legend and folk lore. We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be descendants of the Khan army. we you kind of disproved your own point. if we dont know who conquered afghanistan, then you can't say it's never been conquered, can you? Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you could say we are fighting Ghengis could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it? Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization. They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the civilization is long gone. Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working definition of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal and ethnic. There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real nation as there is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the No-Tell Motel with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson. We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country into a nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's none with the Afghanis. That settles it then. Get our troops out and bomp the place into a sheet of glass. Pass the word on to Obammy, Krause and lets get started. You're ever the racist, eh, flajim? What does one of your other handles here, "Jim." have to say? Perhaps you should confer with your ******* son Loogy, or is he too busy breaking the arms of kids in his 'hood? |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
In article ,
says... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ? wrote: On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter, which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider. Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little deeper on your side. But anybody who doesn't goose step, drives a wedge in there. The party in general is narrow and intolerant.. -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
In article ,
says... On 7/12/10 9:14 AM, Harold' wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/12/10 7:49 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 13:18:30 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:54:19 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:51:3 People have occupied Kabul but the mountains we are in were never "conquered". tell it to ghengis khan That is not history, that is legend and folk lore. We don't have a clue how effective Khan was in controlling the tribal areas of Afghanistan. For that matter, the people there could be descendants of the Khan army. we you kind of disproved your own point. if we dont know who conquered afghanistan, then you can't say it's never been conquered, can you? Since Afghanistan was ruled by guys named Khan for years I suppose you could say we are fighting Ghengis could be. more evidence they conquered afghanistan, isn't it? Yup, shall we just say it is a country that is still living under Ghengis Khans decendents with about the same level of civilization. They may be living under the descendent's of Genghis Khan but, the civilization is long gone. Painful as it is, I have to agree with you. Afghanistan is a country in map outline only. It is not a nation by any reasonable working definition of that term. What civilization it is has is minimal, tribal and ethnic. There is as much chance of Afghanistan emerging as a real nation as there is of me getting an invite to spend the weekend at the No-Tell Motel with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, or Scarlett Johansson. We should get our ground troops the hell out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, and try to help the Pakistanis turn their crazy country into a nation. There's a small chance of success with the Pakis; there's none with the Afghanis. That settles it then. Get our troops out and bomp the place into a sheet of glass. Pass the word on to Obammy, Krause and lets get started. You're ever the racist, eh, flajim? What does one of your other handles here, "Jim." have to say? Perhaps you should confer with your ******* son Loogy, or is he too busy breaking the arms of kids in his 'hood? Spoofer alert! I'm far too refined and cultured to accuse someone of something that heinous without evidence. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider. Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little deeper on your side. Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim that the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when Bush was IN office? You have to say the US was about as divided as it could get during the Clinton administration. They impeached him and at least 40% of the country thought that was the right thing to do. The vote was 45-55 in the senate. That is "divided" no matter how you measure it. There were plenty of Europeans who thought our Iraq policy was wrong. It was really just us and the Brits. At least 60% of the people thought it was a right-wing stunt. That's a majority, btw. The country is ALWAYS divided, but compared to now? Come on. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"I am Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ? wrote: On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter, which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider. Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little deeper on your side. But anybody who doesn't goose step, drives a wedge in there. The party in general is narrow and intolerant.. -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! You just described the Republicans who've been blocking normal, everyday appointments, obstructing legislation, and basically not even being there, according to their own doctrine. You, the Republicans, and the Tea baggers, scream nazi, yet you're the ones who continually compare Obama and Dems to hitler, stalin, etc. You're a loud-mouth liar and a racist. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:13:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:41:59 -0400, wrote: I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora Bora. we failed in TB because scum bag bush refused to send in US troops when we had osama cornered. the 'new republic' had an excellent article earlier this year on this exact event I don't think BL was going to stay put for the month or two it would take to safely deploy a division. We saw what happens when you don't do the groundwork in Somalia. This started as a quiet hit on Bin Laden but by the time he got to Tora Bora that was not going to work. Bush didn't want another war. Come on. We had him in a corner. We just needed to finish the job, but instead we handed off the responsibility to paid thugs who let him go. Bush didn't want another war? Are you sure? After all, he was "listening" to his generals (until they contradicted Rumsfeld anyway). You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. You simply can not move a mass army as fast as they had to if they were going to get Osama by brute force. It has been almost 10 years and we still don't have that much power in that area. When we started chasing OBL we had local support but he was moving into an area that would rather shoot us than help us. It is still true today and we still do not really have any operational control there with 140,000 people on the ground. There are still 100 al queda there that we can't catch. We have about 95K in Afg. and about the same number in Iraq. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:37:36 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Then why are we saying this wart is about terrorism? There was not a single Taliban involved with 9/11. They were Saudis who simply traveled through Afghanistan. If that was all it took, we should be attacking Germany and Spain where the final plans were developed. Untrue. They may not have participated in the planning, but they refused to give up bin laden, etc. They didn't "simply travel" through. They took over and their extremist views allowed bin laden's crowd to have a safe-haven. Don't try and rewrite Bush's failures. So what are you going to do about Pakistan where he has done the same thing? You're claiming BL is in charge in Pakistan? Well, that's news to the Pakistanis! He is certainly more powerful than we are in the area he is in. But not more powerful than the Pakistani gov't. As I said. Anyone who thinks Karzai or the Junta de jour in Pakistan actually has much influence in the tribal areas is deluded. Which make up (in Pakistan) a relatively small area. Yeah, just the part where the terrorists are and where we can't seem to get them. Well, it's a different country. Are you advocating a new war? I doubt it. The "Countries" we are trying to ally with are so corrupt any deal we may hammer out with them is just a love letter in the sand, to be wiped out with the next tide. And, your solution is.... isolationism? I think we tried that. Buy off the *******s and covertly murder the ones who won't go along. Even Obama has said that is OK. I wouldn't call it murder, but ok. Isn't that what we're doing? ... drone attacks, covert teams... It is possible to lose the whore region and then we would cause problems for India, Israel and most of the rest of the world. Whore region? :) Well, sure there would be problems.... Run, it's the typo police! heh. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:41:14 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I agree with Harry on this one. Generals are hammers, all problems look like nails to them. Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"? Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war. I see the same thing in our military policy. That's why it's fortunate that the military are under civilian control. Not to beat it to death, but that's why McCrystal was booted. McChrystal was booted for letting his staff talk too much. Obama says there were no real policy differences between them. This is not Truman MacArthur And for him talking to much.... which usurps Presidential (civilian) authority. From what they are reporting, most of the offensive jokes came from the staff. He said several things that were out of line. He works for Obama. His staff works for him. He should have fired the staffers and not said what he said. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the military. So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military situation, the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest opinion. Giving an assessment is not the same thing as offering an opinion. So, when a general goes before Congress and is asked a direct military question and gives his honest answer, he should be forced out? That's what Bush did. An assessment is a highly structured process based on underlying factual data and probability analysis. Nice word parse, but the fact is that the military opinion is what we're talking about. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Do you deny that they are controlled by politicians? If we are in Afghanistan another ten years, it will be because Presidents wanted us there. -- With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no authority to question the objective of the mission. Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked. Generals do not get their stars by saying "That's too hard", they get them by saying "Can do sir" In any case, they've already gotten their "stars." So, when asked for a military opinion, it seems to me they've earned the right to be honest. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry " wrote in message m... On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote: On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote: ...it is out to **** us all...forever... General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine years. - - - These whores will do anything to stay in uniform. Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply to one of your posts. Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid, ****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're wrong. It was. Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there. General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it. Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that 'wouldn't work' but did? OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid again. Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to one of my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville. The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay in uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to keep themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should the amount of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex. The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war and the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a lesser degree, George H.W. Bush. There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was. The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart once we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger with close ties to some ayatollah. The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it didn't, half of its officers would be mustered out to become substitute teachers. Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the other way around. Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander in Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders. In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his military advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame. This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities. GTMO is still operating. And, Republicans have blocked moves to allocate funding to getting it closed, and they're blocking moves to transfer the detainees to federal facilities here. A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed. Untrue. It staved off a depression. We are still in Iraq. And, the troop numbers are dropping. We are escalating in Afghanistan. Yes, but they'll be drawn down in the next year or so, as per policy and agreement with the Afg. admin. I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you? Yes, but I can't help what other people refuse to see. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On 7/12/10 1:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"Charles C." wrote in message ... "Harry " wrote in message m... On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote: On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote: ...it is out to **** us all...forever... General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine years. - - - These whores will do anything to stay in uniform. Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply to one of your posts. Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid, ****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're wrong. It was. Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there. General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it. Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that 'wouldn't work' but did? OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid again. Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to one of my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville. The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay in uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to keep themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should the amount of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex. The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war and the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a lesser degree, George H.W. Bush. There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was. The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart once we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger with close ties to some ayatollah. The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it didn't, half of its officers would be mustered out to become substitute teachers. Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the other way around. Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander in Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders. In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his military advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame. This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities. GTMO is still operating. And, Republicans have blocked moves to allocate funding to getting it closed, and they're blocking moves to transfer the detainees to federal facilities here. A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed. Untrue. It staved off a depression. We are still in Iraq. And, the troop numbers are dropping. We are escalating in Afghanistan. Yes, but they'll be drawn down in the next year or so, as per policy and agreement with the Afg. admin. I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you? Yes, but I can't help what other people refuse to see. "Charles" is just another of the demented right-wing assholes here. I don't read his posts...I think I fill my obligatory quota of reading the posts of right-wing morons with the posts I do read. I mean, if you look at a few posts from Scotty Tosk, "Larry," "E-Jack-Ulate, flajim, et cetera, you're sort of off the hook for looking at more. There are a few of these fellows here like "Charles" ...there's more intelligence and thought in a fart than in any of their posts, so...why bother even opening them? |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: In any case, they've already gotten their "stars." So, when asked for a military opinion, it seems to me they've earned the right to be honest. Once, and only once. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
|
Once again, the military establishment proves...
|
Once again, the military establishment proves...
|
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:17:44 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no authority to question the objective of the mission. Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked. Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the military. That really depends on the integrity of the one to whom the opinion is offerred. If he/she is the type that can take only good news, then your opinion is correct. -- I hope your day is simply *SPECTACULAR* !! John H |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:45:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider. Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little deeper on your side. Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim that the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when Bush was IN office? You have to say the US was about as divided as it could get during the Clinton administration. They impeached him and at least 40% of the country thought that was the right thing to do. The vote was 45-55 in the senate. That is "divided" no matter how you measure it. There were plenty of Europeans who thought our Iraq policy was wrong. It was really just us and the Brits. At least 60% of the people thought it was a right-wing stunt. That's a majority, btw. The country is ALWAYS divided, but compared to now? Come on. A lot of people didn't "like" Reagan or Carter but we didn't have outright hatred. I am saying that Clinton was the start of the great divide we see now. You just don't see it because you were not the "out" party at the time. You don't impeach a president without a significant number of the American public supporting the measure in the house. When Chris Mathews invented the Red Blue thing the division just got a name and the unity of the country went down hill from there. That's quite a different statement from what you said originally. Sure, Clinton inspired people to hate. Are you blaming him for it? Seems to me that the people doing the hating are the ones with the problem. They impeached him because of basically nothing, led by a bunch of hypocrites with delusions of grandeur. It had nothing to do with popular opinion. Clinton was highly popular throughout. Mathews articulated a situation. Obama said it's not true. Listen to his 2004 speech. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 09:33:41 -0400, I am Tosk wrote: In article , says... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:18:45 -0400, Harry ? wrote: On 7/11/10 6:12 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:08:08 -0400, wrote: Genghis Khan was quite a few steps up on the ladder of civilization from the clowns that now rule Afghanistan. For one thing, he was a uniter, which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider. Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little deeper on your side. But anybody who doesn't goose step, drives a wedge in there. The party in general is narrow and intolerant.. I really blame the media. They are the ones who invented Red and Blue and the ones who relish in pitting the most radical elements from both sides together in a shouting match every day on TV. It encourages everyone to put everyone else in a box. Just because I hand some of the blame for our problems on Clinton it is assumed I must be a Bush fan. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I consider Clinton, just another Bush, in fact he calls himself the 4th Bush brother. Unfortunately think they have adopted Obama too. The people who are being totally ignored in this country are the ones Nixon called the silent majority. That is those people in the middle who actually decide elections and the ones who think both parties are wrong. That is why we have a congress with a lower approval rating than pond scum. At least pond scum is doing something about CO2 without taxing us. Except that Obama won the popular vote by quite a bit. So, the "silent majority" seems to have spoken. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:51:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:13:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:16:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:41:59 -0400, wrote: I don't believe the Kabul government really has much influence in the area where the AQ guys are hiding. That is why we failed at Tora Bora. we failed in TB because scum bag bush refused to send in US troops when we had osama cornered. the 'new republic' had an excellent article earlier this year on this exact event I don't think BL was going to stay put for the month or two it would take to safely deploy a division. We saw what happens when you don't do the groundwork in Somalia. This started as a quiet hit on Bin Laden but by the time he got to Tora Bora that was not going to work. Bush didn't want another war. Come on. We had him in a corner. We just needed to finish the job, but instead we handed off the responsibility to paid thugs who let him go. Bush didn't want another war? Are you sure? After all, he was "listening" to his generals (until they contradicted Rumsfeld anyway). You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. You simply can not move a mass army as fast as they had to if they were going to get Osama by brute force. It has been almost 10 years and we still don't have that much power in that area. When we started chasing OBL we had local support but he was moving into an area that would rather shoot us than help us. It is still true today and we still do not really have any operational control there with 140,000 people on the ground. There are still 100 al queda there that we can't catch. We have about 95K in Afg. and about the same number in Iraq. That is the number after we finish the surge, that has taken months to get going and we were already there in force . How long do you think it would have taken to deploy the army you think Bush should have used at a moment's notice? Do you think OBL would have waited patiently for them? We had the opportunity to finish him at Tora Bora. Rumsfeld decided to outsource it. It failed. I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in great numbers. You act like we can instantly drop a division into an area nobody actually knows much about, with no real way to support them and expect more than half of them to survive. We could have if we had prepared properly. Rumsfeld/Bush prevented that by firing any general who even talked about it. If you want to say we wasted a lot of our "covert" resources in Iraq, no argument but from where we were, we did about all we could do. Sure. With the forces that we had. Which were inadequate. I do believe a small covert force, working with the locals was the only way we would get OBL. Now perhaps. We had a hard enough time finding Saddam and it was in a totally conqured country. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:53:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Buy off the *******s and covertly murder the ones who won't go along. Even Obama has said that is OK. I wouldn't call it murder, but ok. Isn't that what we're doing? ... drone attacks, covert teams... I am talking about one bullet one kill, not blowing up the whole village. It's rare when that happens. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:17:44 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no authority to question the objective of the mission. Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked. Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the military. That really depends on the integrity of the one to whom the opinion is offerred. If he/she is the type that can take only good news, then your opinion is correct. -- I hope your day is simply *SPECTACULAR* !! John H So, basically Bush was without integrity. I certainly agree with that. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: In any case, they've already gotten their "stars." So, when asked for a military opinion, it seems to me they've earned the right to be honest. Once, and only once. ?? Not sure what you're saying. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Generals do not get their stars by saying "That's too hard", they get them by saying "Can do sir" In any case, they've already gotten their "stars." So, when asked for a military opinion, it seems to me they've earned the right to be honest. In that case it is keeping their stars. Oh come on. So, we shouldn't listen to the military when it comes to force sizes? Who should decide, maybe Barney? |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:59:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: GTMO is still operating. And, Republicans have blocked moves to allocate funding to getting it closed, and they're blocking moves to transfer the detainees to federal facilities here. Obama admits now Gitmo is not going anywhere. It still serves a purpose for his administration. "The president had insisted he would close the detention center by the end of his first year in office, only to be met with a Republican backlash and concern among many Democrats. An alternate site was located in upstate Illinois, and the White House insists that it remains committed to Gitmo's closure. But little has been done to compel Congress to appropriate funds for the move, according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services." A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed. Untrue. It staved off a depression. We will see won't we. Hoover "staved off the depression" for 3 years too. Huh? Hoover did basically nothing except cut spending. How bad it might have been is just conjecture and the real question is whether we would have come out healthier if we had taken a little more pain. There is absolutely no data to suggest that would happen. It would have gotten much, much worse. We are still in Iraq. And, the troop numbers are dropping. We are escalating in Afghanistan. As per what Obama said would happen. Yes, but they'll be drawn down in the next year or so, as per policy and agreement with the Afg. admin. I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you? Yes, but I can't help what other people refuse to see. Lets talk in 2012. That is when the poll that counts will be taken. If Obama has not fulfilled any of these promises, he will go the way of Carter, Bush 1 and Johnson because he will have lost his base. The left is as mad at him about the war, human rights and the failure to get a real health care plan (public option) as the right is about him being from Kenya. ;-) ducking for cover Any of these promises? It's all about the economy at this point. No one really gives a hoot about anything other than jobs and perhaps a little bit about the wars. You forgot to mention that he's illegitimate and hated his mother. :) |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Generals do not get their stars by saying "That's too hard", they get them by saying "Can do sir" In any case, they've already gotten their "stars." So, when asked for a military opinion, it seems to me they've earned the right to be honest. In that case it is keeping their stars. Oh come on. So, we shouldn't listen to the military when it comes to force sizes? Who should decide, maybe Barney? Finally....someone with a sense of humor. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
|
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On 7/13/10 7:44 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... You were going to have a mission shift if we went into Afghanistan in force. The original plan was a covert hit squad. Who is "you"? Bush let Rumsfeld dictate a tiny army with no ability to have boots on the ground, despite the recommendations from the military. The rhetorical you. We are proving a huge army is not much more effective in the mountains than a little hit team. Most people have no concept of what the military is like and what it requires. Sure we do. The military is like a garbage disposal in which you pour $500 to $600 billion a year and then watch your money go down the drain. Once we are out of the Bush Recession/Depression, and there are real jobs around, we need to cut military spending by half, and, at the same time raise pay and benefits substantially for a much smaller active duty force that would be better suited for the sort of trouble and nonsense we face today. The $300 billion a year we'd save could go to far more important needs, such as rebuilding infrastructure, funding schools properly, providing life-long job training for working adults, et cetera. These days, massive military expenditures get you...nothing. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com