IT WAS PROPER FOR GI TO QUESTION RUMSFELD

"McClellan was not, as I mentioned up above, invading a foreign country under false premises."

Well, that's rather in the point of view, isn't it. The States who joined the Confederacy truly believed they what they were doing was legal, and that they not the North were the true inheritors of the American Revolution. Lincoln, they might have argued, invaded the South to impose a dictatorship and illegally free the slaves. All his posturing about preserving the Union was disingenuous, and intended to mask his true intentions. Most of the War was fought in the South, in Virginia, the shenandoah Valley. Again and again the Yankees invaded and wantonly destroyed everything they didn't steal. These were opinions held not only in the South, but by a large portion of those who lived in the North. The Democrats were just as vocal and critical of the Republican administration in the 1860'2 as they are today.

"You go to war with the Army you've got", is hardly "let them eat cake". It was the truth, but perhaps might have been more responsive. Rumsfeld did not say, or suggest, that the problem doesn't exist, or that the Defense Department isn't working to correct it. It will take time to provide more armor, and upgrade equipment in general. In the meantime we can't just call a time-out, King's X. The troops have done an admirable job under trying circumstances, and in the next few months we can expect increased efforts by terrorists to frustrate the democratic process. We will take more casualties, and no one excepting family will mourn them more than their military and civilian leaders.

"And the American citizens who are so blinded by loyalty to ideology that they cannot see that...and could not see that George Bush and company should not be leading this country...fully deserve what they are going to get...what, unfortunately, we are all going to get because of this fiasco."

Replace "George Bush" with "Abraham Lincoln" and this might have been said by any of a number of Yankee Democrats 1861-1864. Copper-heels like Vallandigham would be perfectly at ease with todays more vocal Democratic partisans. Just as the Civil War was not the end of civil rights (remember, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, censored news reports, opened the mail, and tried citizens by secret courts martial), neither is that likely to occur in 2005-08. The Late Unpleasantness was much more traumatic in almost every sense than what we have today.

Frankly, I'm glad that the fighting is taking place in Iraq rather than in New York, Washington, or any place else in the U.S. The radical Islamic terrorist organizations are forced to concentrate their efforts in a reasonably well-defined space. They are expending munitions, treasure and blood to keep Iraq from adopting a secular democratic-styled government. That means less munitions for terrorism in London, Paris, or Seattle. That means fewer dollars to support international terrorism anywhere in the West. The numbers of highly disciplined, trained terrorists is limited, and every one we kill or capture makes the rest of the world safer. This has become a war of attrition, and the terrorist organizations are at the same disadvantage that the Confederate States were during our Civil War. They may find new recruits, but they will be less able than those they lose and they can not replace their losses easily. Be patient, take the long view. Optimism is just as good a "guess" as pessimism. We will prevail in Iraq, and the whole world will benefit.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

kickycan wrote:
None. Just my opinion based on talking to others who served. My cousin was (is) a marine.

My 20+ years of military as enlisted and commissioned officer differs with your opinion...which is a commonly held misperception of the reality of the military. In every thing but combat situations which require unquestioning obedience to lawful orders.

Okay, thanks for the first-hand opinion, Larry.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

kickycan wrote:
None. Just my opinion based on talking to others who served. My cousin was (is) a marine.

My 20+ years of military as enlisted and commissioned officer differs with your opinion...which is a commonly held misperception of the reality of the military. In every thing but combat situations which require unquestioning obedience to lawful orders.

I too had 20+ years in the military 50s-70s and I still smell bullshit. I served in the USAF in a highly technical field without close association to combat. Unquestioning obedience to lawful orders (and military regs) covered a lot more than combat situations. Of course ideas for improvement were encouraged, and there were official suggestion programs, but strict military discipline was and still is a cornerstone of military life.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Larry434 wrote:
kickycan wrote:
None. Just my opinion based on talking to others who served. My cousin was (is) a marine.

My 20+ years of military as enlisted and commissioned officer differs with your opinion...which is a commonly held misperception of the reality of the military. In every thing but combat situations which require unquestioning obedience to lawful orders.

I too had 20+ years in the military 50s-70s and I still smell bullshit. I served in the USAF in a highly technical field without close association to combat. Unquestioning obedience to lawful orders (and military regs) covered a lot more than combat situations. Of course ideas for improvement were encouraged, and there were official suggestion programs, but strict military discipline was and still is a cornerstone of military life.

Don't disagree with any of what you said. The GI was not violating any of the above with his question, IMO.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

[ Be patient, take the long view. Optimism is just as good a "guess" as pessimism.

You are absolutely correct here, Asherman...and I thank you for reminding me.

It is very difficult for me because I have VERY LITTLE confidence in the Bush administration...but I agree that it makes sense to be as optimistic as possible.

Quote:

We will prevail in Iraq, and the whole world will benefit.

I hope you are right...but my optimism simply will not extend that far at this time...and frankly, this sounds like little more than wishful thinking on your part (I will mention this again later).

In any case, in my opinion, we are doing so very much wrong...that to suppose as you do violates the considerable difference between optimism and foolish naivete'.

Quote:

"You go to war with the Army you've got", is hardly "let them eat cake".

You are correct once again, Asherman. It isn't.

"Let them eat cake" apparently was never uttered by Marie Antoinette. She had more intelligence and class.

But the response Rumsfeld gave was in fact uttered...and if you cannot see it for the piece of trash it is, I feel sorry for you.

I'm not going to debate it. I've said what I have to say about it...and I am delighted that so many people on your side of the philosphical chasm are able to divorce themselves from their ideology and charcterize it as the unfeeling garbage it is.

Quote:

Frankly, I'm glad that the fighting is taking place in Iraq rather than in New York, Washington, or any place else in the U.S.

I'd rather this particular bit of fighting not be taking place at all...but that, as with your comment, is neither here nor there.

I view this undertaking as a gross misadventure...and while I truly and honestly hope it turns out well...I see much more room for negative consequences than positive. (Once again bringing into play the difference between optimism and naivete'.)

We'll see.

Quote:

They may find new recruits, but they will be less able than those they lose and they can not replace their losses easily.

Not sure what you are basing this on...but to be honest, it once again sounds like little more than wishful thinking....and, in the thinking of many...wrongheaded.

But I do appreciate your position...and we'll just have to agree to wait things out and see how they resolve.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Don't disagree with any of what you said. The GI was not violating any of the above with his question, IMO.

I agree that he was not in any technical violation, but considering the presence of the press, I would bet that there will be some in his chain of command that consider his question to be display of disrespect for a superior, and press for some form of retalliation after the smoke clears.

0 Replies

"Vengeance is mine" saith the sword.

"Turn the other cheek" and "cast not the first stone" say the TRUE adherents of the teachings of Jesus... yet the so-called (self-styled) "Christians" in our hierarchy have dragged us into an unwinnable and untenable military stand-off ( quagmire).
And they are profiting handsomely from their investments in the War Racket...

Lapel pins and plastic bumper stickers aside... WHO do YOU think is running this war?

Mind you, "Pre-emptive" action is irreconcilable with Jesus' teachings...

0 Replies

Magus wrote:

"Vengeance is mine" saith the sword.

"Turn the other cheek" and "cast not the first stone" say the TRUE adherents of the teachings of Jesus... yet the so-called (self-styled) "Christians" in our hierarchy have dragged us into an unwinnable and untenable military stand-off ( quagmire).
And they are profiting handsomely from their investments in the War Racket...

Lapel pins and plastic bumper stickers aside... WHO do YOU think is running this war?

Mind you, "Pre-emptive" action is irreconcilable with Jesus' teachings...

I dunno. That bit with the assault on the money changers in the Temple was pretty "pre-emptive".

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Magus wrote:
"Vengeance is mine" saith the sword.

"Turn the other cheek" and "cast not the first stone" say the TRUE adherents of the teachings of Jesus... yet the so-called (self-styled) "Christians" in our hierarchy have dragged us into an unwinnable and untenable military stand-off ( quagmire).
And they are profiting handsomely from their investments in the War Racket...

Lapel pins and plastic bumper stickers aside... WHO do YOU think is running this war?

Mind you, "Pre-emptive" action is irreconcilable with Jesus' teachings...

I dunno. That bit with the assault on the money changers in the Temple was pretty "pre-emptive".

Larry...

...are you arguing that Magus is wrong...

...or that Jesus was a hypocrite at times?

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

Magus wrote:
"Vengeance is mine" saith the sword.

"Turn the other cheek" and "cast not the first stone" say the TRUE adherents of the teachings of Jesus... yet the so-called (self-styled) "Christians" in our hierarchy have dragged us into an unwinnable and untenable military stand-off ( quagmire).
And they are profiting handsomely from their investments in the War Racket...

Lapel pins and plastic bumper stickers aside... WHO do YOU think is running this war?

Mind you, "Pre-emptive" action is irreconcilable with Jesus' teachings...

I dunno. That bit with the assault on the money changers in the Temple was pretty "pre-emptive".

nothing could be further from the truth.....Jesus "assaulted" the money changers because they had defiled the Temple...not because He thought maybe they might just sorta there was a possibility could.....

0 Replies

I dunno. That bit with the assault on the money changers in the Temple was pretty "pre-emptive".[/quote]

nothing could be further from the truth.....Jesus "assaulted" the money changers because they had defiled the Temple...not because He thought maybe they might just sorta there was a possibility could.....[/quote]

Yup, kinda like we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait after he had defiled it.

Kinda' like we removed Saddam after years of "defiling" and ignoring the cease fire agreement and U.N. mandates.

More similar than different, IMO.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

I dunno. That bit with the assault on the money changers in the Temple was pretty "pre-emptive".

nothing could be further from the truth.....Jesus "assaulted" the money changers because they had defiled the Temple...not because He thought maybe they might just sorta there was a possibility could.....[/quote]

Yup, kinda like we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait after he had defiled it.

Kinda' like we removed Saddam after years of "defiling" and ignoring the cease fire agreement and U.N. mandates.

More similar than different, IMO.[/quote]

Of course those reasons you site were not the ones given for the Iraq invasion....not until after the WMD's turned up a fantasy.....Son of God or not, Jesus was certainly more consistent than the current group of Pharisees using God to manipulate, control and profit.....that much remains eternal.....

0 Replies

Kinda nervy comparing anything George Bush did/does to Jesus.

But whadda we expect.

0 Replies

Of course those reasons you site were not the ones given for the Iraq invasion

Nonsense.

Gulf War was in response to Saddam's invasion and rape of Kuwait.

This war was to remove the Saddam regime for violating numerous cease fire conditions and U.N. resolutions and posing the threat of deploying WMDs...according to all the world's intelligence agencies.

0 Replies

Hey, if he can be compared to Hitler, why not Jesus?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Hey, if he can be compared to Hitler, why not Jesus?

If you wanna compare George Bush to Hitler, go ahead, McG. Not my style, but I'm not gonna deny you that.

0 Replies

anybody putting their tulkas on the line in combat for the country has the right to ask anybody anything they want.

anybody that says the guy never wondered about this **** without the help of a eporter's 3x5 card is just being partisan.

i support our kids over there. who do the rummy fans support ?

Question

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

anybody putting their tulkas on the line in combat for the country has the right to ask anybody anything they want.

anybody that says the guy never wondered about this **** without the help of a eporter's 3x5 card is just being partisan.

i support our kids over there. who do the rummy fans support ?

Why not both?

0 Replies

because larry, one is getting his can shot off and the other is making excuses. look, i have thought that the iraq mission was bull-oney from get street. but, if we are in, we win. all of this noncin' around is getting people who have put up, as opposed to those that just spout, hurt or killed. i have heard it many times, " well if ya join up, expect to get shot at, wounded, or wasted". fair enough. but it's really full of crap when a person like me, who has never supported the iraq thing, has more concern for the simple needs of the g.i. than the secretary of defense.

i mean really. that idiot miller made such a ruckus at the republican convention about the "87 billion for the troops" (which was really 68 billlion for the military budget and the rest went as a non repayable gift to iraq for reconstruction ) and the "what does kerry expect the troops to shoot at the enemy? spitballs?", and all of the hyper patriotic yammering. yet the same people that are always shrilling that we must support the troops appear to have no concern that these kids are getting fubared due to negligence. the only people stepping up and putting pnacing loudmouths like rumsfeld against the wall are the folks that do the fighting, killing and dying. like the troops and old timers like shwartzkopf.

end of sermon... Confused

btw, i was watching "from the earth to the moon" on sci fi or whatever the other night. i was surprised to learn that mondale had such a thing going on for nasa and space travel in general. good thing i didn't vote for him.

0 Replies

DTOM: Of course combat soldiers are getting shot at and the SOD never does.

That does not make the SOD less of a person, IMO.

I find the whining going on (and I don't think the GI was whining, just asking a legitimate and respectful question) from the enemies of this administration about lack of a well equipped military to be a bit silly given the conditions that existed in the first two years of WWII and at the beginning of the Korean War by comparison.

And bear in mind that tanks are as armored as it gets, yet they too can be blown apart.

0 Replies

IT WAS PROPER FOR GI TO QUESTION RUMSFELD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know