|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote: Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went down hill from there. So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please. I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out now. Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you should be there at all. So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to decide without any facts. I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter what the cost. But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable. Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him qualified to know. They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air support or whatever)" I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama?? |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:39:56 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:31:39 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:27:11 -0500, wrote: He lies by omission. Do you really know our level of participation in the Pakistani incursions? So, you believe that all facts should be exposed to the general public, even if it's not in their best interest? That is the Wikileaks question isn't it? (or the Pentagon Papers) Yes, it's an open question. I think some things need to be kept away from the public I suppose. I'm not a spy or military expert. Are you? How about when Bush/Cheney manipulated facts to suit them? Was that ok? Having nothing to do with what we were talking about. and no it wasn't OK It has to do with facts or non-facts being released to the public. We are not going to know about it until a Delta team is captured and put on trial in Islamabad for a war crime or when they shoot down one of our drones after it bombs a village. And you would prefer drones? Make up your mind. They are about equal, although the Delta team is more surgical and has a better chance of success that a guy in North Dakota looking at a TV screen Wow... is there anything an expert like you doesn't know? I was like you in 1968. I thought we really needed to stop the commie menace in SE Asia. You have the same thing going on with OBL. Except that the military doesn't view him as the #1 threat any more and have said so publicly. Try again. Then what is our excuse for being in Afghanistan again? From Bush it was to get OBL. The other objective was to prevent the Taliban from allowing his kind to exist there. The real objective was probably the Great Game ala Haliburton, since Bush/Cheney didn't really give a crap about Americans or their safety. If they had, they would have stuck to Afg. instead of going into Iraq. Do you know he is not even the guy we want the most right now? It is Anwar Al-Awlaki and he is 1500 miles from Afghanistan in a place where we have zero military presence. Yes. I know this. Your point? Should we execute him or bring him home for trial? If we could shoot him in the head it would be great but these guys are pretty good at not getting got. So, forget Due Process, just kill him? Sounds like you're advocating throwing out some of those precious principles. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:32:06 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:38:29 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:39:56 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:31:39 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:27:11 -0500, wrote: He lies by omission. Do you really know our level of participation in the Pakistani incursions? So, you believe that all facts should be exposed to the general public, even if it's not in their best interest? That is the Wikileaks question isn't it? (or the Pentagon Papers) Yes, it's an open question. I think some things need to be kept away from the public I suppose. I'm not a spy or military expert. Are you? No but I try to pay attention. I do notice, when it is a Republican you want full disclosure but when it is a Democrat you say we should have secrets. Really? Where did I say that? If you can't show me where I've said that, then you should probably stop making up nonsense about what I said or didn't. How about when Bush/Cheney manipulated facts to suit them? Was that ok? Having nothing to do with what we were talking about. and no it wasn't OK It has to do with facts or non-facts being released to the public. See above. So, what are you for? Total disclosure, total non-disclosure, or just when you feel like it? We are not going to know about it until a Delta team is captured and put on trial in Islamabad for a war crime or when they shoot down one of our drones after it bombs a village. And you would prefer drones? Make up your mind. They are about equal, although the Delta team is more surgical and has a better chance of success that a guy in North Dakota looking at a TV screen Wow... is there anything an expert like you doesn't know? You don't have to be Tom Clancy to figure out drones, operated on a TV screen a half a world away are not as good as a guy standing on the ground to assess a target. I guess you haven't read much about how they're controlled and directed then. Read up. I was like you in 1968. I thought we really needed to stop the commie menace in SE Asia. You have the same thing going on with OBL. Except that the military doesn't view him as the #1 threat any more and have said so publicly. Try again. Then what is our excuse for being in Afghanistan again? From Bush it was to get OBL. The other objective was to prevent the Taliban from allowing his kind to exist there. The real objective was probably the Great Game ala Haliburton, since Bush/Cheney didn't really give a crap about Americans or their safety. If they had, they would have stuck to Afg. instead of going into Iraq. To what end? We have been in Afghanistan for a decade and there is no change that will last a week after we leave. To having the troops available to accomplish the mission. To not starting another war we didn't need. All of this about it not lasting a week or whatever from you, the international expert. Do you know he is not even the guy we want the most right now? It is Anwar Al-Awlaki and he is 1500 miles from Afghanistan in a place where we have zero military presence. Yes. I know this. Your point? Should we execute him or bring him home for trial? If we could shoot him in the head it would be great but these guys are pretty good at not getting got. So, forget Due Process, just kill him? Sounds like you're advocating throwing out some of those precious principles. It is the Obama policy, one I agree with. These are enemy combatants, not shop lifters.I have no problem finding them and shooting them. I draw the line at "just thinking" you saw one on TV and killing everyone in a 150 foot radius with Hellfire missiles. He's a US citizen, unless he's renounced his citizenship. If the former, he deserves a fair trial. If the latter, he's a terrorist and should be dealt with. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:10:01 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:34:22 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote: Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went down hill from there. So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please. I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out now. Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you should be there at all. So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to decide without any facts. I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter what the cost. But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable. Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him qualified to know. You are simply obsessed. We were talking about NOW and GW is back in Texas. You can't seem to focus on what happened in the recent past. You're claiming that what Bush did was wrong, but well, he's no longer in office, so we should just forget about it. Sorry, but that's not going to happen. He's one step removed from a war criminal. They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air support or whatever)" I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama?? No I am saying it is not their job to question policy, they only say "can do sir" and give you the plan to do it. It is the president and congress's job to decide when and where we go to war. And, when a general gives his best, honest assessment, that should be ignored because he just wants to win? What nonsense. If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need and what they ask for. Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another 50,000 guys. Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:31:02 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:38:52 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:10:01 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:34:22 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote: Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went down hill from there. So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please. I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out now. Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you should be there at all. So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to decide without any facts. I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter what the cost. But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable. Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him qualified to know. You are simply obsessed. We were talking about NOW and GW is back in Texas. You can't seem to focus on what happened in the recent past. You're claiming that what Bush did was wrong, but well, he's no longer in office, so we should just forget about it. Sorry, but that's not going to happen. He's one step removed from a war criminal. How is he a war criminal? Only the losers are war criminals. They never hang the winners. He lied and 10s of 1000s died for one thing. I think that's good enough to qualify. They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air support or whatever)" I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama?? No I am saying it is not their job to question policy, they only say "can do sir" and give you the plan to do it. It is the president and congress's job to decide when and where we go to war. And, when a general gives his best, honest assessment, that should be ignored because he just wants to win? What nonsense. That is the job of the civilian leadership, to look at the general's assessment and weigh the cost against the objective and what we hope to win. In the case of Afghanistan the cost is far greater than anything we can possibly hope to win. Yes, and that's something Bush didn't do.. or claimed he was doing but didn't. In the case of Iraq, if we take a threat away from Israel, it might have been worth it. That will be WWIII if it really gets going. Huh? Israel is or isn't capable of defending herself? So, we should or shouldn't be the world's police? Please pick one. If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need and what they ask for. Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another 50,000 guys. Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus. When you are dealing with the military, you can quote Caesar's Gallic Wars and still be relevant. Really? Even the 100 Years War (actually 116, but who's counting)? Petraeus used the "rock soup" tactic in Iraq and he is using in Afghanistan as we speak. What else can you call "double down"? An avenue that may bring us to a way to get out without abandoning them to utter chaos. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:13:51 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need and what they ask for. Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another 50,000 guys. Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus. When you are dealing with the military, you can quote Caesar's Gallic Wars and still be relevant. Petraeus used the "rock soup" tactic in Iraq and he is using in Afghanistan as we speak. What else can you call "double down"? Sun Tzu is taught at the USMA (West Point). That's the Art of War you idiot. It's not "war" itself. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com