Yeah, Bernie tops yours any day of the week, 24/7.
Another assertion no less. Emphasis added for dramatic effect.
c.i. wrote :
Quote:What pisses me off more is the simple fact that the generals failed to train and equip the soldiers properly for this war from the very beginning.
if i understand the writer correctly ,
there were simply not enough troops to be trained and equipped . the writer seems to say that it would have been the responsiblity of the generals to ask for enough troops and proper equipment .
if their requests were denied , they should have stated their objectives and if they found that their recommendations were essentially ignored , it was their duty to resign .
instead they choose to accept the assignment against their better judgement - and that is inexcusable imo .
it's about the same as a captain taking out a ship on the high seas knowing that the ship and the crew cannot handle rough weather .
it reminds me of what secretary powell said after he wasn't reappointed .
it was along the lines : "i told the president of the problems we would encounter . when the president didn't accept my advice , my training as a soldier took over : i obeyed his orders ."
that was about the lamest excuse i ever heard ! i really thought that powell had some backbone - apparently his backbone was surgically removed when he was appointed secretary of state .
hbg
Any word on whether Bush plans to use a nuclear bunker buster on the Isfahan bunker?
And whether this bunker buster, if used, would be set at a third of a megaton or a third of a kiloton?
Could it destroy the Isfahan bunker at a third of a kiloton?
When is India's monsoon season? Rain washes fallout out of the air. If a nuclear bunker buster is used at a third of a megaton, at least 200KT (maybe as much as 250 KT) would be from fission. And the bunker buster would explode 10-20 feet underground, guaranteeing that LOTS of dirt would be mixed with the fireball.
Would it be possible to temporarily evacuate the northern half of India?
spendi's assertion: Bernie is obviously comfortably situated and sees it all as a vehicle for the exercise of his acuity, virtuousness and command of the English language.
What's the matter, big boy? Can't you take what you dish out?
What else is it?
He's making no decisions and taking no responsibilty. If he was in the hot seat what do you see him doing? Of course it's an excercise in acuity, virtuousness and the other. What else could it be? It's noises off like your shite.
An assertion is valid when it's obvious. Your assertion wasn't obvious. It was just a complacent lump of gobshite.
spendi, You still haven't noticed it yet, but many of your posts are challenged by most people on a2k. Don't you ever wonder why?
I'd be interested in (all of) your comments on this article linked by BBB -
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=102873
Me? I find it chilling.
squinney wrote:Geeze! The suggestion from the original post is that we are getting ready to hit with another propoganda campaign to "sell" us on war with Iran. Whether or not our military is ready for such doesn't matter.
The question should be are WE ready to be sold?
amen sister.
all those in favor of a pre-emptive strike on iran raise your right hand... no.. your
other right hand.
is that everyone ?
good. now just follow that nice man with alla the stripes on his sleeve over there to your new home away from home.
have a nice war. buh-bye.
Every soldier lost is very sad. Every soldier hurt is very sad.
That's the bad part of war and the military. (If anyone wants to lament the enemy, or civilian casualties, don't think I forgot them. That is not part of this post.)
Yet, there is an entire segment of the U.S. population that has made the military their careers. I understand that, in "blue" states, having a son or daughter that has made the military a career is not something many parents there might say, perhaps, with the same outspoken pride, that parents in a "red" state would. Not that "blue" state parents are not proud of their sons' and daughters' career choice, but they might just be trying to avoid annoying comments from anti-war folk.
It seems that most of the posts are reflecting a "blue" state mentality.
I'm sorry, I don't want to be alienated from the segment of the U.S. population that takes great pride in their patriotic children that might make the military their careers.
War is bad. But, it's not going anywhere. So, while I feel sad for the casualties, and the families of casualties, I do know that there are military personnel that get promotions, medals, etc., as part of a military career, and many do really feel that the jobs they are doing, "someone has to do."
In effect, everyone in the U.S. is not alienated from the administration's objectives. There really are people in this country that have joined the military with the belief, "America, love it or leave it" (A slogan from the Vietnam Era).
I would guess many on this thread understand the concept of "market forces," so if this war is too much for the U.S. to continue, the pool of recruits will dry up. And, to point out that there are bonuses to enlist, I believe, means very little, since that is just part of any marketing effort. What's wrong with inducing an eligible individual to enlist? The inference is that it's showing the war is wrong? No, it's showing that the U.S. is trying not to resume the draft, I believe!
Excuse me; not only do I hear a different drummer, but I hear the faint sound of a Souza march in the distance. I need to move from this spot; I want to see the American flag when it passes by.
c.i. wrote-
Quote:spendi, You still haven't noticed it yet, but many of your posts are challenged by most people on a2k. Don't you ever wonder why?
No. Maybe lefties are more attracted to the site.
What's your policy in the Mid-east c.i.? Starting from here rather than somewhere you would like us to be.
Lay it out in clear unambiguous terms.
spendi, I already have on many threads on a2k. It's not my fault you failed to read them.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:all those in favor of a pre-emptive strike on iran raise your right hand...
I need more information.
If we can exclude the use of nuclear weapons, and if we can pull the aircraft carriers out of range of Iran's anti-ship missiles and do the bombing using heavy bombers flying out of Diego Garcia and Tomahawks fired from subs, then sure. It'll be something to watch on TV.
But if we have to nuke Iran or keep our carriers in harms way, then I vote no.
Foofie wrote:
I would guess many on this thread understand the concept of "market forces," so if this war is too much for the U.S. to continue, the pool of recruits will dry up. And, to point out that there are bonuses to enlist, I believe, means very little, since that is just part of any marketing effort. What's wrong with inducing an eligible individual to enlist? The inference is that it's showing the war is wrong? No, it's showing that the U.S. is trying not to resume the draft, I believe!
Excuse me; not only do I hear a different drummer, but I hear the faint sound of a Souza march in the distance. I need to move from this spot; I want to see the American flag when it passes by.
Oh, thank you kindly. You were blocking my view of reality.
(Gets binoculars out so as to view the propoganda coming from a mile away.)
Foofie, Doesn't it make you wonder why Bush doesn't institute the draft if the US is fighting for our survival from world terrorism? The rhetoric just doesn't measure up to the actions. Instead, we are paying a $20,000 bonus for new recruits to be shipped overseas to Iraq in short order. Hope they live to enjoy that money.
osso
Hard to know. I'm not terribly familiar with this fellow or the group he represents though the few commentaries I've seen arise from this source have seemed level-headed.
Re Rove, there are certainly other compelling suppositions re his decision to leave abruptly at this point in time. Rove's almost sole concern has always been electoral results. He may or may not have previously campaigned (behind closed doors) for active militarism and we may never know, but we do know that he used militarism as a centerpiece in his strategies for electoral advantage.
The portrait of Woolsey looks accurate. You can find lots of commentary from him (writing and interviews) going back a decade or more for aggressive militarism in the middle east. I did find the quotation from Woolsey that the piece notes unsurprising (you can find it in his own words at the link below where Frontpage carries a commentary piece by Woolsey originally in the Jerusalem Post - previously owned by Conrad Black and predictably rightwing/Likkud/anti-muslim...
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={7C0C77CD-6B90-4D08-85F4-2501A75AD8AB}
For anyone who has read Woodward's last book, the JINSA mention might ring a bell. Colin Powell, understanding that he was being outflanked in the internal debate on launching war against Iraq, stated to Wilkerson (or maybe it was Armitage) that "Bush has been captured/converted (some word like that) by the JINSA crowd."
If this same group of people remain influential to the point of trumping other competing views, then an attack looks certain. But they won't be the only voices in whatever debates are going on internally.
oralloy wrote:DontTreadOnMe wrote:all those in favor of a pre-emptive strike on iran raise your right hand...
I need more information.
If we can exclude the use of nuclear weapons, and if we can pull the aircraft carriers out of range of Iran's anti-ship missiles and do the bombing using heavy bombers flying out of Diego Garcia and Tomahawks fired from subs, then sure. It'll be something to watch on TV.
But if we have to nuke Iran or keep our carriers in harms way, then I vote no.
Boy, what fun! Get out the popcorn and beer. Call the buddies and get them over to watch in the rec room as insignificant people of the wrong color get exploded real good.
As someone from the Muslim world put it, "The difference between CNN and al jazeera is that the first shows the rockets launching and the latter shows them landing."
Your deference to the consequences of nuclear fallout make you about the lousiest saint I've seen today.
foofie wrote:
Quote:No, it's showing that the U.S. is trying not to resume the draft, I believe!
Excuse me; not only do I hear a different drummer, but I hear the faint sound of a Souza march in the distance. I need to move from this spot; I want to see the American flag when it passes by.
Of course they are insistent upon avoiding a draft. And if you get honest and clear on WHY that is so, you might be a little less cavalier, not to mention sycophantic, about your zest for the flag and German military march music.
A draft will not be acceptable to the great majority of American citizens. That's obvious and it is why it is avoided. Why will the great majority of American citizens reject such a draft? Well, either Americans are cowards or they are spoiled and lazy or they, in great majority, are not in agreement with present American militarism. Which would you conclude to be true regarding Americans?
