|
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Harry " wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote:
"Harry " wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't see won't spook you. Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers have on your mind. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/ |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
On 7/13/10 9:27 AM, Harold wrote:
"Harry wrote in message ... On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't see won't spook you. Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers have on your mind. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/flajimsucks Sorry, flajim, but I have no interest in reading tomes from right-wing **** slingers. Surely you are not trying to deny that the military and its contractors wipe each others' asses during and after "service." |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Harry ?" wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 9:27 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message ... On 7/13/10 9:03 AM, Harold wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... On 7/13/10 8:26 AM, YukonBound wrote: "Harry wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. And when they retire, they go to work for the contractors. Where did you and your little ball licker gain your military expertise? Some of us read, flajim, and, if you read, you learn about the machinations of the military-industrial complex. You are quite the reader, however, to have a balanced, objective point of view you need to begin reading materials that are not on the approved reading list provided by your handlers. It must be tough for you stumbling through life wearing horse blinders. But, on the other hand, what you can't see won't spook you. Here's one you can start with that should help loosen the grip your handlers have on your mind. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/book/flajimsucks Sorry, flajim, but I have no interest in reading tomes from right-wing **** slingers. Surely you are not trying to deny that the military and its contractors wipe each others' asses during and after "service." Change it to public servants, lobbyists, contractors and I will agree. O'Bama promised he would change all that. That promise was broken within days, maybe even hours or minutes. Gotta watch that boy of yours. He's practicing slight of hand but he isn't very good at it. It would help if you took your blinders off. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
In article ,
says... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about military procedure, etc. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
|
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:15:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. If anyone is to blame it is the media that poured gasoline on a smoldering fire. I was just putting a stick in the time line when this started. Folks on the left don't see it because he was your guy. When it went the other way your guys went as nuts as the worst "wingnuts" you were criticizing. I think you're somewhat right that the media isn't doing their job. Anyone who takes Fox seriously probably has brain damage. MSNBC is mostly entertainment, but at least Olbermann doesn't lie. It has swung back the other way now and you think Obama can do no wrong and the people who are on the other side are nuts. Not true. He's criticized plenty by Olbermann and many others on the left. I'm not particularly left wing, except socially. The rhetoric didn't even change much You have the legitimacy argument "Bush stole the election" (electoral college deniers) Which he did by proxy of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt that it was a political decision and not a judicial one. Even the language of their decision say it. "Obama is allowed to be president" (birthers) That's just loony tunes. The two are not comparable. If you actually look at policy, not much changed since Bush 1. Big business is still calling the shots.The wars go on and we are going broke because of it. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Harry" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about military procedure, etc. Don't recall you mentioning serving in the military, Kevin. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in great numbers. We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count Granada. It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that long They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not much flat ground to create drop zone. We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war. We started bombing in October. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"D.Duck" wrote in message ... "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. Hey Barney went after reporters. :) |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
In article ,
says... "Harry" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about military procedure, etc. Don't recall you mentioning serving in the military, Kevin. WTF is "Kevin"? Are you really that stupid? |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Harry" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Harry" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Harry ?" wrote in message m... 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. Helps lifetime senior officers create their own little empires and makes the favoured suppliers/contractors filthy rich. Little buddy, you and I are just alike! We are cowards, so we never thought of helping to protect our country, but we act like we know about military procedure, etc. Don't recall you mentioning serving in the military, Kevin. WTF is "Kevin"? Are you really that stupid? Not at all, Kevin. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:15:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: 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. If anyone is to blame it is the media that poured gasoline on a smoldering fire. I was just putting a stick in the time line when this started. Folks on the left don't see it because he was your guy. When it went the other way your guys went as nuts as the worst "wingnuts" you were criticizing. I think you're somewhat right that the media isn't doing their job. Anyone who takes Fox seriously probably has brain damage. MSNBC is mostly entertainment, but at least Olbermann doesn't lie. What? Olberman is just the mirror of Rush. They both have a vein of truth in their spin but it is mostly spin. I can't stand more than a minute of either of them. It's pretty easy to find the many and ongoing lies told by Rush. Feel free to point out a lie Olbermann told. I certainly understand people not wanting to listen to either, but you can't seriously claim that they're similar. It has swung back the other way now and you think Obama can do no wrong and the people who are on the other side are nuts. Not true. He's criticized plenty by Olbermann and many others on the left. I'm not particularly left wing, except socially. I haven't heard Olbermann do the "how dare you sir" thing yet and the same policies are still in effect. He's come pretty close several times. I think the difference is in the degree of egregious behavior between the two presidents. He's certainly disagreed with him and got angry with him more than a few times. The rhetoric didn't even change much You have the legitimacy argument "Bush stole the election" (electoral college deniers) Which he did by proxy of the Supreme Court. There's little doubt that it was a political decision and not a judicial one. Even the language of their decision say it. "Obama is allowed to be president" (birthers) That's just loony tunes. The two are not comparable. They are both loony tunes, unless you think the SCOTUS is corrupt and if that is true we are in big trouble. Neither Obama nor Bush are crazy. Maybe crazy like a fox. SCOTUS made a major mistake and basically acknowledged as much in their ruling, saying "this is our decision, but don't use it as precedence." I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they're corrupt as a body, but some on the court are flirting with ethical problems.. Scalia (whom I respect for his intellect) and Thomas, who's wife is knee deep in right-wing politics. Many opportunities for a serious conflict of interest. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:20:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in great numbers. We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count Granada. It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that long They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not much flat ground to create drop zone. We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war. We started bombing in October. We did not have any time. Where are you getting that? They didn't start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan. There was no way we could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way around the world before he could run 6 miiles.We dod bounce the rubble for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could do. Right now we should be trying to bribe as many of these tribal leaders with stuff they want and ratchet back the combat mission. We have reached the point of diminishing returns. They are spending $300,000,000 a month there according to NBC Sunday morning and that is ridiculous. You can buy those guys a lot of goats for $300,000,000. What are we going to do if the next attack comes from Somalia or Yemen? Dump $300,000,000 a month in there too? Just to put this in perspective, that $300,000,000 would buy health care for 300,000 families. (at the Obama care max of $1,000 a month) We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. Honestly, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with the Afg. war. Either Petraeus turns it around or we should get the heck out, and keep a health supply of drones and special forces available. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:20:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in great numbers. We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count Granada. It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that long They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not much flat ground to create drop zone. We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war. We started bombing in October. We did not have any time. Where are you getting that? It's all over the place. BL didn't leave until mid-December. They didn't start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan. 6 miles by air. Maybe 30-40 via slow, arduous, snow-covered mountain paths. And he was only squeezed into Pakistan by the incompetence of Franks/Rumsfeld. There was no way we could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way around the world before he could run 6 miiles. Pure bull****. See cite below. Plenty analysis of Tora Bora everywhere. We dod bounce the rubble for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could do. Apologist tripe. Don't try to change written history. Tora Bora had undergone air bombardment for a month before Bin Laden escaped on December 16th. Bin Laden was there and could have been killed/captured. Tommy Franks screwed the pooch. For what reason isn't known. I suspect he was just gun shy. At that time I think the only American casualty was that CIA agent killed in the prison breakout. Franks didn't want our troops killed, and we would have suffered substantial casualties, no telling how many. Lousy General. Paying criminals to do his job while he sat in Tampa. And he denied those 4,000 Marines the honor of killing Bin Laden. Any one of them had more courage than Franks, and knew what was expected of them. Franks was unsuitable for command. If Bush says we'll get Bin Laden dead or alive, he god damned better make sure his general gets the job done. Rumsfeld and his entire crew was weak compared to Gates and his. But there's no changing history. 4000 Marines were there, plenty to get the job done, but not put to use. And with the slightest foresight a general should possess, there should have been many more troops at the ready, and Bin Laden surrounded by American troops before being chased to Pakistan by ineffective aerial bombing and the criminal Afghani thugs hired by Franks. The primary mission in Afghanistan was to kill Bin Laden. The CIA located Bin Laden, then Centcom screwed everything up from there. Rumsfeld was probably pulling Frank's strings. One of the worse Secretarys of Defense. Kicked out far too late. Utter command failure. Both Rumsfeld and Franks went out with a whimper, and neither is missed by anybody as far as I know. Like GWB. Disgraced. Not killing Bin Laden at Tora Bora was a huge mistake, and is still costing us big time. By not sacrificing as needed at Tora Bora, AQ leadership and morale lived on. Wonder how many GI's died in Iraq because of that. Many more than would have been lost at Tora Bora I'd wager. You and GWB might forget who was behind 9/11 but a lot of us don't. Bin Laden is just one more GWB mess for Obama to clean up. Your excuses are bull**** revisionism. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/ma...gewanted=print "One of them was Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of some 4,000 marines who had arrived in the Afghan theater by now. Mattis, along with another officer with whom I spoke, was convinced that with these numbers he could have surrounded and sealed off bin Laden's lair, as well as deployed troops to the most sensitive portions of the largely unpatrolled border with Pakistan. He argued strongly that he should be permitted to proceed to the Tora Bora caves. The general was turned down. An American intelligence official told me that the Bush administration later concluded that the refusal of Centcom to dispatch the marines - along with their failure to commit U.S. ground forces to Afghanistan generally - was the gravest error of the war." Jim - Anti-revisionist. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:28:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: What? Olberman is just the mirror of Rush. They both have a vein of truth in their spin but it is mostly spin. I can't stand more than a minute of either of them. It's pretty easy to find the many and ongoing lies told by Rush. Feel free to point out a lie Olbermann told. I don't watch him enough to find a recent example but when I do I usually find something misrepresented at least once a show. Like? I certainly understand people not wanting to listen to either, but you can't seriously claim that they're similar. The only reason you say that is because he says things you agree with, same for Rush and his listeners. No. I say that because one lies on a regular basis. The other doesn't lie, and he corrects his mistakes. They are both loony tunes, unless you think the SCOTUS is corrupt and if that is true we are in big trouble. Neither Obama nor Bush are crazy. Maybe crazy like a fox. SCOTUS made a major mistake and basically acknowledged as much in their ruling, saying "this is our decision, but don't use it as precedence." I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they're corrupt as a body, but some on the court are flirting with ethical problems.. Scalia (whom I respect for his intellect) and Thomas, who's wife is knee deep in right-wing politics. Many opportunities for a serious conflict of interest. I think there may have been a desire to bring that mess to a close ... before we had President Strom Thurmond. The speaker (Hastert) said he would not take the job so Strom was going to be our guy on Jan 20. It was clear that without some decisive action, the lawyers could have kept the dueling law suits going on that long ... assuming the Senate didn't do something even more troubling when it came time to poll the EC. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:31:44 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war. We started bombing in October. We did not have any time. Where are you getting that? They didn't start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan. There was no way we could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way around the world before he could run 6 miiles.We dod bounce the rubble for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could do. Right now we should be trying to bribe as many of these tribal leaders with stuff they want and ratchet back the combat mission. We have reached the point of diminishing returns. They are spending $300,000,000 a month there according to NBC Sunday morning and that is ridiculous. You can buy those guys a lot of goats for $300,000,000. What are we going to do if the next attack comes from Somalia or Yemen? Dump $300,000,000 a month in there too? Just to put this in perspective, that $300,000,000 would buy health care for 300,000 families. (at the Obama care max of $1,000 a month) We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons both here and in Kabul. WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval. The plan was for a surgical strike that just took out Bin Laden. It almost worked. When it didn't we should have pulled back and come up with another plan. If we had just let him relax a bit he might have popped up some place where we could get him. In that regard, you have to look at how Mossad dealt with Black September. That was working great until they shot an innocent waiter. It didn't work because Rumsfeld did let his military actually take the lead and get it done. He micromanaged everything and fired all those who had a different opinion to the point where nobody would offer one. We are not the Mossad. Honestly, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with the Afg. war. Either Petraeus turns it around or we should get the heck out, and keep a health supply of drones and special forces available. The light will come on for you. You are still young. I've never been happy about killing people, even bad guys. It's the butt end of the legal system... when nothing else works. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
"Jim" wrote in message ... wrote: On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:20:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:19:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I think we'd both be surprised by how quickly the military can deploy in great numbers. We sure have not seen them do it, ever in my life, unless you count Granada. It took 6 months to get into Kuwait and the "surges" take about that long They did rush into Somalia without proper support and got their ass kicked by a street gang. The mountains of Afghanistan is infinitely harder that Iraq, Kuwait or Somalia. Just keeping 5000 men in food and ammo takes a significant effort in a place with no airports and not much flat ground to create drop zone. We had plenty of time in Afg. There was a fairly long run up to that war. We started bombing in October. We did not have any time. Where are you getting that? It's all over the place. BL didn't leave until mid-December. They didn't start until October and that was not in the area around Tora Bora. We started in the areas where we had local support and we did pretty well there with our covert forces. We lost OBL in Tora Bora about 2 months later and that is only 6 miles from Pakistan. 6 miles by air. Maybe 30-40 via slow, arduous, snow-covered mountain paths. And he was only squeezed into Pakistan by the incompetence of Franks/Rumsfeld. There was no way we could bring in the number of troops to secure that area from half way around the world before he could run 6 miiles. Pure bull****. See cite below. Plenty analysis of Tora Bora everywhere. We dod bounce the rubble for a couple weeks and hoped we would get lucky. They may have been able to get the air strikes in faster but that was about all we could do. Apologist tripe. Don't try to change written history. Tora Bora had undergone air bombardment for a month before Bin Laden escaped on December 16th. Bin Laden was there and could have been killed/captured. Tommy Franks screwed the pooch. For what reason isn't known. I suspect he was just gun shy. At that time I think the only American casualty was that CIA agent killed in the prison breakout. Franks didn't want our troops killed, and we would have suffered substantial casualties, no telling how many. Lousy General. Paying criminals to do his job while he sat in Tampa. And he denied those 4,000 Marines the honor of killing Bin Laden. Any one of them had more courage than Franks, and knew what was expected of them. Franks was unsuitable for command. If Bush says we'll get Bin Laden dead or alive, he god damned better make sure his general gets the job done. Rumsfeld and his entire crew was weak compared to Gates and his. But there's no changing history. 4000 Marines were there, plenty to get the job done, but not put to use. And with the slightest foresight a general should possess, there should have been many more troops at the ready, and Bin Laden surrounded by American troops before being chased to Pakistan by ineffective aerial bombing and the criminal Afghani thugs hired by Franks. The primary mission in Afghanistan was to kill Bin Laden. The CIA located Bin Laden, then Centcom screwed everything up from there. Rumsfeld was probably pulling Frank's strings. One of the worse Secretarys of Defense. Kicked out far too late. Utter command failure. Both Rumsfeld and Franks went out with a whimper, and neither is missed by anybody as far as I know. Like GWB. Disgraced. Not killing Bin Laden at Tora Bora was a huge mistake, and is still costing us big time. By not sacrificing as needed at Tora Bora, AQ leadership and morale lived on. Wonder how many GI's died in Iraq because of that. Many more than would have been lost at Tora Bora I'd wager. You and GWB might forget who was behind 9/11 but a lot of us don't. Bin Laden is just one more GWB mess for Obama to clean up. Your excuses are bull**** revisionism. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/ma...gewanted=print "One of them was Brig. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of some 4,000 marines who had arrived in the Afghan theater by now. Mattis, along with another officer with whom I spoke, was convinced that with these numbers he could have surrounded and sealed off bin Laden's lair, as well as deployed troops to the most sensitive portions of the largely unpatrolled border with Pakistan. He argued strongly that he should be permitted to proceed to the Tora Bora caves. The general was turned down. An American intelligence official told me that the Bush administration later concluded that the refusal of Centcom to dispatch the marines - along with their failure to commit U.S. ground forces to Afghanistan generally - was the gravest error of the war." Jim - Anti-revisionist. Thank you. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:52:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The only reason you say that is because he says things you agree with, same for Rush and his listeners. No. I say that because one lies on a regular basis. The other doesn't lie, and he corrects his mistakes That is just your opinion. I have seen him take things out of context and present them in ways that make them untrue. You don't see it because you agree with him, again, the same as a Rush listener. No, I don't "agree with him" on everything. And, yes, there's a difference. As I said, an example? They are both polarizing figures who would rather be controversial and get ratings than to be objective reporters. They both take themselves far to seriously as do their fans. Yes, they're polarizing figures. But, Rush just lies and lies. His "fans" are called ditto heads. They do and think what he says. No so with Olbermann fans. They think he's entertaining, but no everything he says is considered as fact. If you want to see where our deep divide comes from, it is these hate merchants. It is BY FAR weighted from the right on the hate side. Faux spreads the lies on a daily basis. A third of the country thinks MSNBC lies and a third think Fox lies, the rest don't pay a lot of attention to either of them. Put me in the latter category. "News" has become less fact and more opinion over the last couple decades and that is particularly true of cable news. CNN may be the pick of the litter but it is still not the objective news outlet Ted Turner created. Some of these shows are just road runner cartoons. It's not a matter of thinking someone is lying vs. whether or not they are actually lying. Facts can be checked. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons both here and in Kabul. WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval. There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is now. To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again. That was what we were trying to avoid. Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done. You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it. Not sure about Jim's contention. I didn't see it. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:40:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons both here and in Kabul. WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval. There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is now. To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again. That was what we were trying to avoid. Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done. You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it. I used your 90% quote, I didn't believe it but you said it. "Something like 90% approval" That was Bush's approval rating after 9/11. He could have done just about anything he wanted. He was able to invade a country that didn't need invading, so it seems likely he could have invaded Afghanistan with the right number of troops. |
Once again, the military establishment proves...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:38:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:40:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:54:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: We could have brought in many more troops if Rumsfeld had set up the invasion that way. He didn't. They were really trying to avoid an invasion for political reasons both here and in Kabul. WHAT??? The whole point of going after Afg. was bin laden. The politics were go for it in the American public's view. Something like 90% approval. There was a 90% approval to "get Bin Laden" but if you polled the country about a 60,000 man force, going to 100,000 men by the end of this year you would have been polling at around 40%. where Obama is now. To the Afghanis, we are just the Soviets invading them again. That was what we were trying to avoid. Jim's contention that 4000 marines was going to get the job done is countered by the fact that 60,000 isn't getting the job done. You have a cite for this Bush-era poll? I doubt it. I used your 90% quote, I didn't believe it but you said it. "Something like 90% approval" That was Bush's approval rating after 9/11. He could have done just about anything he wanted. He was able to invade a country that didn't need invading, so it seems likely he could have invaded Afghanistan with the right number of troops. He didn't have 15 UN resolutions and the precedent of a 10 year air war to back up an invasion of Afghanistan. BTW I doubt Bush ever had a 90% approval rating ?? Why would he need that for Afg.? We were attacked and that country was harboring the attackers. http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com