DrewDad wrote:McGentrix wrote:...I don't recall anyone having a crystal ball (well, maybe Craven, but no one in the administration).
But the subordinates predicted an insurgency... that's one of the complaints. The administration didn't listen to warnings, and did not make provisions for worse- and worst-case scenarios.
Gen Shinsecki said we would need a force of 380,000 to deal with Iraq. We all know what happened to him...uh strike that...those who actually follow events rather than just constantly regurgitating right-wing talking points know what happened to him.
Any general who wants war is an idiot and should be replaced immediately.
The most successful war is the one that's won but never fought. Or doesn't anyone else read Sun-Tzu?
blacksmithn wrote:McGentrix wrote:Most of the failing war effort the US has been involved in has had similar complaints from various anti-war groups/people. It happened during the civil war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war. Funny how these things never happen during the successful wars.
With the relatively low American mortality rate (compared to other wars of length) the war in Iraq hasn't really been that much of a failure. Mistakes have been made, sure, but war is never easy and I don't recall anyone having a crystal ball (well, maybe Craven, but no one in the administration).
Gee, why don't you just regurgitate Rush's entire suckass show? Or you could try an original thought now and again.
As for the "low" mortality rate, it's still 100% for whatever poor dogface is on the receiving end of the bomb or bullet. And US involvement in Vietnam started out with a "low" casualty count too, by the way. If you want to truly support the troops, and I presume you do, then how about saving them from a needless death in a useless war of choice.
Why do you listen to Rush? I don't and I am a conservative. If that is what he has to say about it, then good for him! Can you imagine 2 conservatives having the same ideas?
McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:McGentrix wrote:Most of the failing war effort the US has been involved in has had similar complaints from various anti-war groups/people. It happened during the civil war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war. Funny how these things never happen during the successful wars.
With the relatively low American mortality rate (compared to other wars of length) the war in Iraq hasn't really been that much of a failure. Mistakes have been made, sure, but war is never easy and I don't recall anyone having a crystal ball (well, maybe Craven, but no one in the administration).
Gee, why don't you just regurgitate Rush's entire suckass show? Or you could try an original thought now and again.
As for the "low" mortality rate, it's still 100% for whatever poor dogface is on the receiving end of the bomb or bullet. And US involvement in Vietnam started out with a "low" casualty count too, by the way. If you want to truly support the troops, and I presume you do, then how about saving them from a needless death in a useless war of choice.
Why do you listen to Rush? I don't and I am a conservative. If that is what he has to say about it, then good for him! Can you imagine 2 conservatives having the same ideas?
I can't imagine you having a thought in your head that didn't originate from a Republican Party talking point or one of their media shills. As we see here.
McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:McGentrix wrote:Most of the failing war effort the US has been involved in has had similar complaints from various anti-war groups/people. It happened during the civil war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war. Funny how these things never happen during the successful wars.
With the relatively low American mortality rate (compared to other wars of length) the war in Iraq hasn't really been that much of a failure. Mistakes have been made, sure, but war is never easy and I don't recall anyone having a crystal ball (well, maybe Craven, but no one in the administration).
Gee, why don't you just regurgitate Rush's entire suckass show? Or you could try an original thought now and again.
As for the "low" mortality rate, it's still 100% for whatever poor dogface is on the receiving end of the bomb or bullet. And US involvement in Vietnam started out with a "low" casualty count too, by the way. If you want to truly support the troops, and I presume you do, then how about saving them from a needless death in a useless war of choice.
Why do you listen to Rush? I don't and I am a conservative. If that is what he has to say about it, then good for him! Can you imagine 2 conservatives having the same ideas?
What a stupid and uninformed conclusion. One doesn't have to actaully listen to that dirtbbag's show to know what he says. His lies are exposed on a daily basis by Dem Bloggers as well as by those on progressive radio. The days when those on the loony right make all the noise and go unchallenged are over.
www.dailykos.com
www.mediamatters.org
www.tpmcafe.com
Just to name a few...
So, how's everybody doing today? :-)
Rumsfeld undone
H.D.S. Greenway The Boston Globe
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2006
BOSTON The cascade of generals pouring out of retirement to denounce their former boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has caught national attention. Both Rumsfeld and the White House have made statements and issued damage-control memos to stem a tide for which there are no precedents in modern times - at least not in the American armed forces.
Rumsfeld tried to dismiss it all by saying that if every retired admiral and general seeking to oust the secretary of defense were listened to, it would be a "merry-go-round." But such outspokenness on the part of retired American military men cannot be so easily brushed aside - especially since the generals are not challenging civilian control of the military, nor, for the most part, the Iraq war itself. The complaint is that Rumsfeld didn't want to listen to advice and botched the war.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to sidestep criticism of the war by admitting to "tactical errors." But the generals know that the errors were strategic and operational and at the highest level.
Respect for the military institution itself is deeply ingrained in the American military. Publicly criticizing the civilian leadership is not done, even in retirement, and some military men are offended by the forthright generals and their public statements. On the other hand, Colonel H.R. McMaster's book "Dereliction of Duty," which criticizes the top brass for not speaking out against the Vietnam War, has been making the rounds, making a powerful case for speaking out.
Military loyalty to the civilian political leadership is one of America's strengths. American soldiers have never indulged in coups or political intrigues as have the militaries of so many other nations. I have been told that there was astonishment in some countries that President Truman did not think it necessary to move a single battalion to the capital when the cashiered General Douglas MacArthur came back from Korea to address a joint session of Congress.
But the provocation that brought these American generals to go public was intense. To my mind, none of the generals put it better than Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold when he told Time magazine that "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special provinces of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."
The contrast between George W. Bush's safe National Guard service during the Vietnam War to that of his father, George H.W. Bush, who risked his life in the Pacific War in an exceedingly dangerous torpedo plane, could not be more stark.
Arch-hawk Dick Cheney famously said he had other priorities than to serve his country in Vietnam. And the other furious hawks, whose messianic vision for a transformed Middle East so casually committed young Americans to war, had no grounding in what war really means.
Unlike the theocratic zealots in the Bush administration, Rumsfeld wasn't so interested in the transformative power of democracy in the Middle East as he was proving his theories of a new, streamlined military. In his arrogance he ignored all warnings to the contrary, and planned only for a quick in - and out - war. Now that his forces are stuck in a quagmire, he clings to unreality. Rumsfeld must have been the last person in the United States to admit that there was an insurgency going on in Iraq. And today one has the impression that Shiites and Sunnis would have to dress up in the blue and the grey and have at each other with cannons and muskets over stone walls for Rumsfeld to admit there is a civil war.
President George W. Bush's loyalty to Rumsfeld may seem admirable, but it is politically foolish and dishonorable. After the spectacular failure of Iraq - not to mention the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo - it's time for the old Republican virtues of personal responsibility and accountability. The continued presence of Rumsfeld in the administration decreases the chances that Bush can keep public support for the war. For the American people have lost faith in Bush's judgment, and Rumsfeld is a prime example of the president's lack of judgment.
After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President Kennedy is said to have told the CIA's Richard Bissell that if America had a parliamentary system, it would be he, Kennedy, who would have to go. But since it did not, Bissell would have to resign.
In the Bush administration, even spectacular failure seems only to result in a Medal of Freedom.
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.
Roxxxanne wrote:McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:McGentrix wrote:Most of the failing war effort the US has been involved in has had similar complaints from various anti-war groups/people. It happened during the civil war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war. Funny how these things never happen during the successful wars.
With the relatively low American mortality rate (compared to other wars of length) the war in Iraq hasn't really been that much of a failure. Mistakes have been made, sure, but war is never easy and I don't recall anyone having a crystal ball (well, maybe Craven, but no one in the administration).
Gee, why don't you just regurgitate Rush's entire suckass show? Or you could try an original thought now and again.
As for the "low" mortality rate, it's still 100% for whatever poor dogface is on the receiving end of the bomb or bullet. And US involvement in Vietnam started out with a "low" casualty count too, by the way. If you want to truly support the troops, and I presume you do, then how about saving them from a needless death in a useless war of choice.
Why do you listen to Rush? I don't and I am a conservative. If that is what he has to say about it, then good for him! Can you imagine 2 conservatives having the same ideas?
What a stupid and uninformed conclusion. One doesn't have to actaully listen to that dirtbbag's show to know what he says. His lies are exposed on a daily basis by Dem Bloggers as well as by those on progressive radio. The days when those on the loony right make all the noise and go unchallenged are over.
www.dailykos.com
www.mediamatters.org
www.tpmcafe.com
Just to name a few...
You demonstrate examples of the looney left to prove that the looney right exists?
Typical.
McGentrix wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:McGentrix wrote:blacksmithn wrote:McGentrix wrote:Most of the failing war effort the US has been involved in has had similar complaints from various anti-war groups/people. It happened during the civil war, the Korean war, the Vietnam war. Funny how these things never happen during the successful wars.
With the relatively low American mortality rate (compared to other wars of length) the war in Iraq hasn't really been that much of a failure. Mistakes have been made, sure, but war is never easy and I don't recall anyone having a crystal ball (well, maybe Craven, but no one in the administration).
Gee, why don't you just regurgitate Rush's entire suckass show? Or you could try an original thought now and again.
As for the "low" mortality rate, it's still 100% for whatever poor dogface is on the receiving end of the bomb or bullet. And US involvement in Vietnam started out with a "low" casualty count too, by the way. If you want to truly support the troops, and I presume you do, then how about saving them from a needless death in a useless war of choice.
Why do you listen to Rush? I don't and I am a conservative. If that is what he has to say about it, then good for him! Can you imagine 2 conservatives having the same ideas?
What a stupid and uninformed conclusion. One doesn't have to actaully listen to that dirtbbag's show to know what he says. His lies are exposed on a daily basis by Dem Bloggers as well as by those on progressive radio. The days when those on the loony right make all the noise and go unchallenged are over.
www.dailykos.com
www.mediamatters.org
www.tpmcafe.com
Just to name a few...
You demonstrate examples of the looney left to prove that the looney right exists?
Typical.
Do ever ******* understand
anything? Anything? As if it needs to be proven that the loony right exists. The point I was making, Einstein, was that your ignorant assertion that one has to listen to druggie's show to find out what says is absurd.
panzade wrote:au1929 wrote: "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special provinces of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results.".
well said
Exactly why I detest chickenhawks!!
Anon
Roxxxanne wrote:Do ever **** understand anything? Anything? As if it needs to be proven that the loony right exists. The point I was making, Einstein, was that your ignorant assertion that one has to listen to druggie's show to find out what says is absurd.
I have long believed that the looney left was spoon fed their opinions. Thanks for reinforcing that opinion.
Hey, I'm not the one quoting virtually verbatim from Oxycontin-Boy's show as though from the Gospel, Mr. Spoonfed.
Still, preserve your delusions as best you can.
Left... left....left, right, left.......
Montana...here's my take:
I'm not an apologist for the right or, for that matter, a cheerleader for the left. I just want good discussions.
I get the sense that a lot of the more erudite righties have abandoned ship here at A2K...I mean as far as Iraq is concerned.
The mutiny of the generals is a serious thing for our republic...I just don't see the old guard jumping in to disagree.
Then again, maybe they've rethought their positions. Conservative, moderate, liberal; none of these require blind obedience.
The blind obedience club, however, is well represented on this board.
It's possibly an amusing conceit when you're tucked safely up in an air-conditioned Pentagon office with your tunnel vision and a no notion of an exit strategy (or that one might even be necessary and desirable). I suspect it's something entirely different when you're at the sharp end of the spear and bullets are whining around your head in the sweltering Baghdad night.
a little further...
"wasn't the war plan great, but the peace plan sucks?'
