|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com