Listening To The Generals On The Ground

[Baron Von Esslingen]

It's pretty apparent, despite all of his claims, that George Bush does NOT listen to his commanders on the ground. Otherwise they would not be doing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPIi03wSfY

When generals have to retire in order to tell the president the truth, something is fundamentally wrong with the process.

[Psychoblues]

It was recently reported that 70% of the troops returning from duty in Iraq say as much and worse.



It's pretty apparent, despite all of his claims, that George Bush does NOT listen to his commanders on the ground. Otherwise they would not be doing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPIi03wSfY

When generals have to retire in order to tell the president the truth, something is fundamentally wrong with the process.

The American people will wake up, someday. God bless the peace makers and to Hell with the warmongers. 2,000 years ago Jesus warned us about all this. Some of us refuse to listen to His advice.

[avatar4321]

If generals are retired, by definition, they wouldn't be on the ground would they?

[stephanie]

I'm ashamed of these Generals, just as I am of Kerry and Murtha..

They should also be ashamed of themselves...

[Psychoblues]

I think the Generals, and Kerry and Murtha are honest Americans, Stephanie.



I'm ashamed of these Generals, just as I am of Kerry and Murtha..

They should also be ashamed of themselves...

I am ashamed only of you and your demonstrated ignorance.

[stephanie]

I think the Generals, and Kerry and Murtha are honest Americans, Stephanie.




I am ashamed only of you and your demonstrated ignorance.

Whatever......If you would rather run me down, instead of addressing the post......So be it.....Nothing new here....:laugh2:

I posted my opinion on the commercial and what I thought of it...But you would rather take a shot at a poster, I guess because you have nothing else.....????
Which is not uncommon for you.....
You believe you can demoralize a person so they will not respond to you...
You have succeeded doing that with a lot of people........
Keep up the good work........

[Psychoblues]

I addressed the post and reflected my agreement with it. You took a shot at me and I returned it.


Whatever......If you would rather run me down, instead of addressing the post......So be it.....Nothing new here....:laugh2:

I posted my opinion on the commercial and what I thought of it...But you would rather take a shot at a poster, I guess because you have nothing else.....????
Which is not uncommon for you.....
You believe you can demoralize a person so they will not respond to you...
You have succeeded doing that with a lot of people........
Keep up the good work........

I tried to help you, even honestly sympathized with your pitiful existence, and you shat upon me like I was dirt under your feet. I am no elephant but I don't forget.

My intent has never been to run you down, staphy, and I will not accept your accusations as anything other than to toot your own horn. Be that as it is, I told you I was 'done with you" and I am. Please refrain from your begging PM's and pitiful remarks on posts to me in the future. You yanked my chain. I fell for it and tried my best and now you kick me as a rock on your merry road. You don't deserve my attention or anyone else's.

Get your kicks on Route 66.

[stephanie]

I addressed the post and reflected my agreement with it. You took a shot at me and I returned it.



I tried to help you, even honestly sympathized with your pitiful existence, and you shat upon me like I was dirt under your feet. I am no elephant but I don't forget.

My intent has never been to run you down, staphy, and I will not accept your accusations as anything other than to toot your own horn. Be that as it is, I told you I was 'done with you" and I am. Please refrain from your begging Pm's and pitiful remarks on posts to me in the future. You yanked my chain. I fell for it and tried my best and now you kick me as a rock on your merry road. You don't deserve my attention or anyone Else's.

Get your kicks on Route 66.

cheers2:

[stephanie]

I addressed the post and reflected my agreement with it. You took a shot at me and I returned it.



I tried to help you, even honestly sympathized with your pitiful existence, and you shat upon me like I was dirt under your feet. I am no elephant but I don't forget.

My intent has never been to run you down, staphy, and I will not accept your accusations as anything other than to toot your own horn. Be that as it is, I told you I was 'done with you" and I am. Please refrain from your begging Pm's and pitiful remarks on posts to me in the future. You yanked my chain. I fell for it and tried my best and now you kick me as a rock on your merry road. You don't deserve my attention or anyone Else's.

Get your kicks on Route 66.

You were as sincere as you were in displaying my PMS to everyone.....
So no....I will not take your damn display of sincerity as a truce...

.Well it hasn't ended what you started, my friend.........so you can go........and......:dance:

[Psychoblues]

No truce, bitch, and I did not display your PM's to anybody.




You were as sincere as you were in displaying my PMS to everyone.....
So no....I will not take your damn display of sincerity as a truce...

.Well it hasn't ended what you started, my friend.........so you can go........and......:dance:

I was sincere and you are the dancer. My regret is that I did not recognize it as you were yanking my chain. That's OK. You didn't kill me therefore you have made me stronger.

I'll be OK. I hope you will be the same.

[Sitarro]

It's pretty apparent, despite all of his claims, that George Bush does NOT listen to his commanders on the ground. Otherwise they would not be doing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPIi03wSfY

When generals have to retire in order to tell the president the truth, something is fundamentally wrong with the process.

Generals are basically politicians with Majors and Colonels doing the real work. I wonder which political office this guy is planning on.

My father, who spent 29 years in the Air Force, spent the last 2 flying the Air Force version of a corporate jet...he wanted to be hirable once he retired. The guys he flew around on those jets were mostly Generals......he didn't like or respect very many of them. He felt that they had given up being military men when they got to that rank and become nothing but spoiled politicians, from what I have seen, I AGREE..

[Baron Von Esslingen]

If generals are retired, by definition, they wouldn't be on the ground would they?

They WERE on the ground in Iraq and quit because your Boy George refused to listen to them. That's the whole point; to refute the claim that he "listens" to his generals. He only does when they agree with him.

[Birdzeye]

Count on these generals getting swiftboated. :mad:

[TheStripey1]

If generals are retired, by definition, they wouldn't be on the ground would they?

you didn't watch the video, did you?

They were on the ground in the past... on the ground IN Iraq... commanding the troops...

[TheStripey1]

I'm ashamed of these Generals, just as I am of Kerry and Murtha..

They should also be ashamed of themselves...

why, because they chose to speak the truth?

So it's now out in the open that Bush lies when he says he listens to the generals on the ground...

Are you also ashamed of bush? Or do you admire liars?

[TheStripey1]

Whatever......If you would rather run me down, instead of addressing the post......So be it.....Nothing new here....:laugh2:

I posted my opinion on the commercial and what I thought of it...But you would rather take a shot at a poster, I guess because you have nothing else.....????
Which is not uncommon for you.....
You believe you can demoralize a person so they will not respond to you...
You have succeeded doing that with a lot of people........
Keep up the good work........

:boohoo:

General Baptiste served in Iraq... What didn't you like about the ad? That he is speaking out against bush? That he says bush has broken our military with his failed policies? If you have so much damn concern for our troops and our country as you claim you do, shouldn't you be ashamed of bush?

He lies when he says he listens. Don't you care about that?

[Birdzeye]

But . . . but . . . but . . . but Stripey . . . Bush DOES listen to the generals! At least when they're saying what he wants to hear!

[TheStripey1]

Generals are basically politicians with Majors and Colonels doing the real work. I wonder which political office this guy is planning on.

My father, who spent 29 years in the Air Force, spent the last 2 flying the Air Force version of a corporate jet...he wanted to be hirable once he retired. The guys he flew around on those jets were mostly Generals......he didn't like or respect very many of them. He felt that they had given up being military men when they got to that rank and become nothing but spoiled politicians, from what I have seen, I AGREE..


Is your dad still alive? Can you ask him if he likes lying presidents?

Thanks....

[Samantha]

I'm ashamed of these Generals, just as I am of Kerry and Murtha..

They should also be ashamed of themselves...Strange that you should be ashamed of folks who tell the truth. They told Bush he needed 250,000 troops to secure Iraq after shock and awe. Bush didn't listen to them, he sent 100,000. Now Bush says he listens to the generals, but only the ones that will do his bidding! The rest have retired in disgust or been forced to retire so they can be replaced with yes men.

Did you listen to what General Batiste said? Bush is breaking our military. Do you think the war can be won if the President who never fought in a war is making all the decisions without listening to the Generals? Don't you realize, this is why it's such a disastor? Because the commander guy is a moron.

I'm ashamed of the liars, Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the people that said the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil and only last 6 months at the most.

They should also be ashamed of themselves.


I think the Generals, and Kerry and Murtha are honest Americans, Stephanie.

I am ashamed only of you and your demonstrated ignorance.I'm ashamed that some of my fellow Americans don't care enough about our troops and our military as a whole to want to stop it from being destroyed by a failed, lied about war waged to line the pockets of a select few.

[TheStripey1]

Count on these generals getting swiftboated. :mad:

Now is not 2004... and these generals aren't john kerry... I don't think anyone will be so stupid as to try and impugn these men...

[Birdzeye]

Now is not 2004... and these generals aren't john kerry... I don't think anyone will be so stupid as to try and impugn these men...

Oh, I'm not so sure about that, Stripey. These generals are contradicting His Majesty, and they must be punished, in the opinions of His Majesty's followers.

If nothing else, it would be a way to discredit their message, by smearing them.

[TheStripey1]

rather than watching it on YouTube... why not go to the source...

VoteVets.org (http://www.votevets.org/)

There you can make a donation to help them take these ads nationwide... the whole country needs to see that bush lies when he says he listens to the generals... the WHOLE country...

[TheStripey1]

Oh, I'm not so sure about that, Stripey. These generals are contradicting His Majesty, and they must be punished, in the opinions of His Majesty's followers.

If nothing else, it would be a way to discredit their message, by smearing them.

You're probably right... I'm sure there will be plenty of bushbots out trying to slime the generals with their bile... but considering how well the war is going and how much support bush has nowdays, I don't think they'll get far with their slime-job...

Some people like those that tell the truth... others don't care if they're lied to...

I'm in the first crowd... you are too...

[Dilloduck]

You're probably right... I'm sure there will be plenty of bushbots out trying to slime the generals with their bile... but considering how well the war is going and how much support bush has nowdays, I don't think they'll get far with their slime-job...

Some people like those that tell the truth... others don't care if they're lied to...

I'm in the first crowd... you are too...

And some just like to pretend that the ones that say what they like to hear are tellig the "truth".

[loosecannon]

Count on these generals getting swiftboated. :mad:

LOL!!:clap: :clap:

The sad truth. Given a choice between abandoning Bush and destroying the nation by the inch they cling fast to Bush.....

[Gaffer]

Bush has and does listen to the generals. There was nothing said about his having to follow what they recommended. If you say that you listen to what I have to say and then don't do what I recommend does that make you a liar?

He has dozens of generals all giving their opinions of the war operations. He makes judgements based on all the recommendations. Certain generals with political asperations whose suggestions are not acted on then retire and begin attacking the president. I would suggest you take note of their names and look up where they end up working in the next two years. These guys have an agenda and it doesn't involve the good of the country.

[tim_duncan2000]

He had been listening to several generals, and some did better than others. Some were on board with the small footprint that did not work that well.


but considering how well the war is going and how much support bush has nowdays, I don't think they'll get far with their slime-job..
And just how is it going? The lying MSM doesn't want to ever admit it, but the surge has had positive results. I'm sure people like you will just ignore it though.


Is your dad still alive? Can you ask him if he likes lying presidents?
Name some of these "lies".


Count on these generals getting swiftboated.
I love how that term has a negative connotation and yet no one has proven the swift boat veterans wrong.

[darin]

If a General - or ANY leader - holds his/her tongue they are worthless and SHOULD be 'forced' into retirement.

[Dilloduck]

LOL!!:clap: :clap:

The sad truth. Given a choice between abandoning Bush and destroying the nation by the inch they cling fast to Bush.....

I remember a time when anti-war folks were pissed off for being painted as being unpatriotic for dissenting. Accusing people of wanting to destroy the nation inch by inch is the identical type of insult. Again-----if you don' like it said to you--don't do it to others. Supporting things is just as patriotic as dissent is.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The sad truth. Given a choice between abandoning Bush and destroying the nation by the inch they cling fast to Bush.....

It's what makes them "good, little soldiers," Loosecannon. The ones who told the truth, like General Shinseki, were shown the door.

Didn't someone here say that these retired generals have an agenda or a political position they were pursuing? What's General Shinseki doing right now?

[Dilloduck]

It's what makes them "good, little soldiers," Loosecannon. The ones who told the truth, like General Shinseki, were shown the door.

Didn't someone here say that these retired generals have an agenda or a political position they were pursuing? What's General Shinseki doing right now?

What does telling the truth have anything to do wit accomplishing a mission?
How many times have generals been relieved of thier duties in past conflicts?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I remember a time when anti-war folks were pissed off for being painted as being unpatriotic for dissenting. Accusing people of wanting to destroy the nation inch by inch is the identical type of insult. Again-----if you don' like it said to you--don't do it to others. Supporting things is just as patriotic as dissent is.

And those discredited tactics of questioning the Left's patriotism are still being used... by members of this board, no less! *GASP* Nothing new from the neocon side there.

Supporting a president by telling him what he wants to hear and not what he needs to hear is an even greater disservice to the country. Posting a lie as the truth leads to a greater disaster when the lie is exposed. There is no doubt that some generals believe in the Bush strategy but it is unlikely that all of them do. The ones who don't speak out because of fear of retribution are doing no one any favors but the ones who do speak out and are punished for it are more typical of what has gone on in this conflict.

The military is being ground up and the National Guard is suffering as well. This president has made this war about himself and not the peace & security & democracy of Iraq and the bitter fruit you see now is the consequence.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

What does telling the truth have anything to do wit accomplishing a mission?

In this administration? Nothing.


How many times have generals been relieved of thier duties in past conflicts?

In past conflicts, some. In this conflict, every time we turn around.

[Dilloduck]

In this administration? Nothing.



In past conflicts, some. In this conflict, every time we turn around.

try often

So I can assume that if Gen Petraeus wants more troops and us to stay longer you'll be all for it? You're disingenuous as hell--don't even bother answering.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

So I can assume that if Gen Petraeus wants more troops and us to stay longer you'll be all for it? You're disingenuous as hell--don't even bother answering.

You can assume all you want...

I have been against this war since the beginning. Why the fuck would I support a surge, 40 or 400 thousand troops when I believe this war was a mistake from the start? You are clueless. Don't bother answering.

[lily]

try often

So I can assume that if Gen Petraeus wants more troops and us to stay longer you'll be all for it? You're disingenuous as hell--don't even bother answering.


Well, the 2 generals before Petraeus said we didn't need this surge......so we now know what happens when you don't say what Bush wants to hear.

[lily]

Now is not 2004... and these generals aren't john kerry... I don't think anyone will be so stupid as to try and impugn these men...


And we have a winner!


Certain generals with political asperations whose suggestions are not acted on then retire and begin attacking the president. I would suggest you take note of their names and look up where they end up working in the next two years. These guys have an agenda and it doesn't involve the good of the country.

[lily]

And just how is it going? The lying MSM doesn't want to ever admit it, but the surge has had positive results. I'm sure people like you will just ignore it though.

Cool! I'd like to read some of those articles. Got a link?

[loosecannon]

I would suggest you take note of their names and look up where they end up working in the next two years. These guys have an agenda and it doesn't involve the good of the country.

I think you have a lotta god damned nerve to categorically make that kinda claim about people who spent their lives serving their nation.

In fact if I did not suspect you were senile i would call you a cowardly, lying sack of shit.

[loosecannon]

I remember a time when anti-war folks were pissed off for being painted as being unpatriotic for dissenting. Accusing people of wanting to destroy the nation inch by inch is the identical type of insult. Again-----if you don' like it said to you--don't do it to others. Supporting things is just as patriotic as dissent is.

Supporting a president who has done nothing but break Iraq, our standing in the world, our military and our economic future all once is not patriotic.

It may be anything from dangerously uninformed to treasonous. That is for god to sort out.

But it IS destroying our country inch by inch regardless of the Bushbots' intent.

[Gaffer]

I think you have a lotta god damned nerve to categorically make that kinda claim about people who spent their lives serving their nation.

In fact if I did not suspect you were senile i would call you a cowardly, lying sack of shit.

I do have a lot of nerve. I challenge you to take note of their names and see what they do in the future. If they aren't running for a public office themselves they will be on some democrats payroll.

I see you still can't make a post without taking personal cheap shots.

[Dilloduck]

You can assume all you want...

I have been against this war since the beginning. Why the fuck would I support a surge, 40 or 400 thousand troops when I believe this war was a mistake from the start? You are clueless. Don't bother answering.

In other words---If the generals on the ground don't say "cut and run" you aren't going to back them up anyway. Yet you STILL mock Bush for not listening. What integrity you have !! :lmao: :lmao:

[loosecannon]

What does telling the truth have anything to do wit accomplishing a mission?
How many times have generals been relieved of thier duties in past conflicts?


Responding to your scrambled logic: Lincoln was a great example of a CIC managing generals. He fired quite a few. He was impatient for results and he wasted little time in responding to negative news.

But Lincoln played little role in making military decisions. Almost none in the actual tactical aspects. He assigned proffessionals to do it and fired them if they failed.

Grant was a winner. Lee was a winner, but Grant prevailed.

Bush and Rummy have micromanaged the war since they manufactured "evidence" of it's neccesity. Which is obvious when you look at how Bush disregarded the advice of the Baker Hamilton Commission.

Bush wanted to be in charge too often and made the wrong calls, hired the wrong list of Iraq Czars. All failures. Bremer, Rice, Negroponte, and now Patreus.

Will Bush listen even now if Patreus says "we are losing", "there is no military solution".

NO, Patreus said both and Bush ignores his input.

[loosecannon]

I do have a lot of nerve. I challenge you to take note of their names and see what they do in the future. If they aren't running for a public office themselves they will be on some democrats payroll.

I see you still can't make a post without taking personal cheap shots.

Generals almost never run for public office Gaffe.

Eisenhower, Wesley Clarke. Can you name one more?

One? Calling our career military agenda driven and acting against the best interest of our country is a cheap shot.

Meanwhile you have a subject who is OBVIOUSLY nothing but a self serving politician and you support him no matter how badly he fails and embarrasses the American people.

[Dilloduck]

Responding to your scrambled logic: Lincoln was a great example of a CIC managing generals. He fired quite a few. He was impatient for results and he wasted little time in responding to negative news.

But Lincoln played little role in making military decisions. Almost none in the actual tactical aspects. He assigned proffessionals to do it and fired them if they failed.

Grant was a winner. Lee was a winner, but Grant prevailed.

Bush and Rummy have micromanaged the war since they manufactured "evidence" of it's neccesity. Which is obvious when you look at how Bush disregarded the advice of the Baker Hamilton Commission.

Bush wanted to be in charge too often and made the wrong calls, hired the wrong list of Iraq Czars. All failures. Bremer, Rice, Negroponte, and now Patreus.

Will Bush listen even now if Patreus says "we are losing", "there is no military solution".

NO, Patreus said both and Bush ignores his input.

"No military solution" in NO WAY implies that our military shouldnt remain there until a solution is found .

[lily]

"No military solution" in NO WAY implies that our military shouldnt remain there until a solution is found .

Are you saying that diplomacy just might work?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

In other words---If the generals on the ground don't say "cut and run" you aren't going to back them up anyway. Yet you STILL mock Bush for not listening. What integrity you have !! :lmao: :lmao:

If the generals on the ground imitate Reagan and say "let's cut & run" it won't make any difference to me because I said they should not have been there in the first place. If they say "let's Stay The Course" it won't make any difference to me because I said they should not have been there in the first place. You see, this whole thing is not about me. You would like to think so but even I don't have that big an ego to think so.

Bush claims to listen to the generals on the ground. He doesn't. Well, he does listen to them if they say what he wants to hear. If they don't, he fires them and gets someone who does. Retired two-star Army Gen. John Batiste commanded forces on the ground in Iraq but objected to the way that Rumsfailed ran the war. He voiced his concerns thru his chain of command but when he realized that it did no good he retired so he could speak out publicly. Bush & co didn't listen to Batiste then but they have to listen to him now. I'm just waiting for Rove to kick the swiftboat liars into action.

My integrity is paired with your intelligence.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Batiste spoke out on MSNBC tonight and said that Bush's pursuit of a military option is the reason his policy is failing. Ignoring the political, diplomatic, and economic options that are available insure that failure. He is absolutely correct.

[loosecannon]

Batiste spoke out on MSNBC tonight and said that Bush's pursuit of a military option is the reason his policy is failing. Ignoring the political, diplomatic, and economic options that are available insure that failure. He is absolutely correct.

I am begining to believe that Bush may be destroying our military on purpose. While simultaneously paying for the assemblage of private mercenary Armies like BlackWater to take it's place.

Hence his grinding war in Iraq, 100's of billions in expenses with no results and his treatment of the military leaders.

If the military leaders understood that this was happening what would they do?

And what are they doing?

You see my point?

[TheStripey1]

And some just like to pretend that the ones that say what they like to hear are tellig the "truth".

you mean like the righties are with everything that comes out of bush's mouth?

[Kathianne]

I am begining to believe that Bush may be destroying our military on purpose. While simultaneously paying for the assemblage of private mercenary Armies like BlackWater to take it's place.

Hence his grinding war in Iraq, 100's of billions in expenses with no results and his treatment of the military leaders.

If the military leaders understood that this was happening what would they do?

And what are they doing?

You see my point?

No.

[TheStripey1]

Bush has and does listen to the generals. There was nothing said about his having to follow what they recommended. If you say that you listen to what I have to say and then don't do what I recommend does that make you a liar?

He has dozens of generals all giving their opinions of the war operations. He makes judgements based on all the recommendations. Certain generals with political asperations whose suggestions are not acted on then retire and begin attacking the president. I would suggest you take note of their names and look up where they end up working in the next two years. These guys have an agenda and it doesn't involve the good of the country.

as much as I hate to say it, gaffer... you're right... and Mrs Stripey pointed this out to me last night as well... he has never said that he takes their advice, only that he listens... but I don't think he does that... he hears... he doesn't listen...

who do you think bush should get his advice from? Those that have been in command in country or those that haven't even been in the military?

I do think however that the former commander of the Big Red One has more knowledge of what is going on in Iraq from having been there, than bush does sitting on his fat ass 10,000 miles away.

[Dilloduck]

I am begining to believe that Bush may be destroying our military on purpose. While simultaneously paying for the assemblage of private mercenary Armies like BlackWater to take it's place.

Hence his grinding war in Iraq, 100's of billions in expenses with no results and his treatment of the military leaders.

If the military leaders understood that this was happening what would they do?

And what are they doing?

You see my point?

oh ya--that's what his intent is---destroying our military ! :cuckoo:

[TheStripey1]

And just how is it going? The lying MSM doesn't want to ever admit it, but the surge has had positive results. I'm sure people like you will just ignore it though.


got a link or are you just passing gas?

have you seen the spike in violence in Diyala Province? it's a prime example of the whack a mole plan bush calls the surge... send in troops to one province and the bad guys go somewhere else and set up shop... pull troops out of another locale to send them there and the baddies head to another locale... and the only constant is more dead americans...

how many americans have to die before your blood lust is satisfied?

[TheStripey1]

Name some of these "lies".



sure... Bush's Lies (http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=2670&start=0)

[TheStripey1]

If a General - or ANY leader - holds his/her tongue they are worthless and SHOULD be 'forced' into retirement.

and you base this opinion on how much PERSONAL experience in the military? Are you aware that military personnel are forbidden to bad mouth their commanders? Ever hear of the UCMJ?

Article 88—Contempt toward officials
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

[Dilloduck]

US Commander in Northern Iraq Asks for More Troops
By Meredith Buel
Washington
11 May 2007

Buel report (MP3) - Download 611k
Listen to Buel report (MP3)


The U.S. commander in northern Iraq says he does not have enough manpower to secure the increasingly violent Diyala province. Major General Benjamin Mixon made the remarks to reporters at the Pentagon by videoconference from Iraq. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details from Washington.
http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-11-voa42.cfm

SEND THIS GENERAL MORE TROOPS-----LIBERALS SAY TO DO WHAT GENERALS ASK :salute:

[TheStripey1]

I remember a time when anti-war folks were pissed off for being painted as being unpatriotic for dissenting. Accusing people of wanting to destroy the nation inch by inch is the identical type of insult. Again-----if you don' like it said to you--don't do it to others. Supporting things is just as patriotic as dissent is.

maybe... maybe not...

were you one of those that used to paint us as unpatriotic because we opposed the war?

[TheStripey1]

It's what makes them "good, little soldiers," Loosecannon. The ones who told the truth, like General Shinseki, were shown the door.

Didn't someone here say that these retired generals have an agenda or a political position they were pursuing? What's General Shinseki doing right now?

No clue... he hasn't been in the news...

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I see your point...

[TheStripey1]

What does telling the truth have anything to do wit accomplishing a mission?

How many times have generals been relieved of thier duties in past conflicts?

telling the truth should be what every general does... every politician too... but it's too bad so many of them fall short... are you claiming that General Batiste is lying?

no clue... how many?

[TheStripey1]

So I can assume that if Gen Petraeus wants more troops and us to stay longer you'll be all for it? You're disingenuous as hell--don't even bother answering.

no... my position is as it has always been... I'm against the war in iraq.

[TheStripey1]

I do have a lot of nerve. I challenge you to take note of their names and see what they do in the future. If they aren't running for a public office themselves they will be on some democrats payroll.


General Batiste is a REPUBLICAN. you'd know that IF you watched the ad... but hey... it's been a whole day since I put it up, maybe you forgot...

so here... watch it again... it's on the front page...

http://www.votevets.org

[Dilloduck]

no... my position is as it has always been... I'm against the war in iraq.

Then stop this shit about listening to generals on the ground. You won't listen them either.

[TheStripey1]

In other words---If the generals on the ground don't say "cut and run" you aren't going to back them up anyway. Yet you STILL mock Bush for not listening. What integrity you have !! :lmao: :lmao:

if the generals don't say "yes surge", they are sent packing...

I mock bush for getting us into the war in the first place...

[TheStripey1]

Bush wanted to be in charge too often and made the wrong calls, hired the wrong list of Iraq Czars. All failures. Bremer, Rice, Negroponte, and now Patreus.

Will Bush listen even now if Patreus says "we are losing", "there is no military solution".

NO, Patreus said both and Bush ignores his input.

bush only "hears" what he wants to hear... the voices inside his head...

[Dilloduck]

if the generals don't say "yes surge", they are sent packing...

I mock bush for getting us into the war in the first place...

look at you backpeddle !!!!!!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

if the generals don't say "yes surge", they are sent packing...

I mock bush for getting us into the war in the first place...
Why? I mean you are saying from the onset you saw it differently than most Americans, including the majority of the opposition party in both houses, when they were in the minority. So why were you so brilliant? You based it on what?

[TheStripey1]

"No military solution" in NO WAY implies that our military shouldnt remain there until a solution is found .

at what cost? how many of our troops have to die before you will say enough is enough?

[Dilloduck]

at what cost? how many of our troops have to die before you will say enough is enough?

The general on the ground WANTS MORE TROOPS !!!!! ARE YOU LISTENING ??????????????

[Gaffer]

as much as I hate to say it, gaffer... you're right... and Mrs Stripey pointed this out to me last night as well... he has never said that he takes their advice, only that he listens... but I don't think he does that... he hears... he doesn't listen...

who do you think bush should get his advice from? Those that have been in command in country or those that haven't even been in the military?

I do think however that the former commander of the Big Red One has more knowledge of what is going on in Iraq from having been there, than bush does sitting on his fat ass 10,000 miles away.

I think Bush should get his advice from the generals serving over there. whether he listens and hears or just listens I can't judge as I'm not privy to those discussions.And I think the the advice from the generals should carry a lot more weight than a bunch of congress critters attempting to run things from washington when they don't even have the information the president has.

The president may be 10.000 miles away but he is in charge and does run everything based on what he's informed on. He isn't and can't be in the trenches and running around the streets personally leading raids. He tells the generals what he wants and they attempt to do that. If they fail and the advice turns out to be wrong then they will be replaced with someone with another plan.

[TheStripey1]

No.


psssst, kathieanne... they're leaving the military...

are you hip to BlackWater?

[TheStripey1]

oh ya--that's what his intent is---destroying our military ! :cuckoo:

well? republicans have gone on and on and on about how badly Clinton treated the military during his presidency and yet you continue to blindly support presidunce bush who has utterly broken it... why?

[Dilloduck]

well? republicans have gone on and on and on about how badly Clinton treated the military during his presidency and yet you continue to blindly support presidunce bush who has utterly broken it... why?

THE GENERAL IS WAITING ON MORE TROOPS, STRIPEY !!!

[Gaffer]

got a link or are you just passing gas?

have you seen the spike in violence in Diyala Province? it's a prime example of the whack a mole plan bush calls the surge... send in troops to one province and the bad guys go somewhere else and set up shop... pull troops out of another locale to send them there and the baddies head to another locale... and the only constant is more dead americans...

how many americans have to die before your blood lust is satisfied?

That was the old way of doing it. The difference now with the surge troops is that they go in and clear out the bad guys and they hold it. They move on to the next place and hold it. That's the reason for the extra troops. To be able to hold and secure areas taken over by the assault forces.

There is a spike in violence because al queda is surging as well. It was expected in the planning of the operations. And its expected to continue throughout the summer.

[loosecannon]

"No military solution" in NO WAY implies that our military shouldnt remain there until a solution is found .

That is a POV. To me no military solution means if you don't find the GD other solution now you don't belong there and can't stay.

The VN war, Afghanistan vs USSR, the recnt Israel Lebanon war and Iraq (along with a half dozen other lessor wars) all signify a paradigm shift in modern warfare reflected in the wisdom of the Powell Doctrine.

We can't occupy worth a shit with our style of military and our comfort level with casualties. That's reality. Assymetric warfare is prepared for far higher casualties, willing to escalate brutality to a much higher threshold and they can wait decades to win in the end.

It costs us $10-$30 billion/month to fight a modern war. It costs assymetric enemies as little as $1-$3 million/month to wear us down and eventually win.

We can bust up and destroy with the best of em. But if we can't get the mission accomplished and get out, we will eventually lose.

Afghanistan did play a major part in bankrupting the USSR.

These are fool's wars.

Which is partly why GB 41 left Iraq without invading Bdad.

[Dilloduck]

THE GENERAL IS WAITING ON MORE TROOPS, STRIPEY !!!

WELL ???

[TheStripey1]

US Commander in Northern Iraq Asks for More Troops
By Meredith Buel
Washington
11 May 2007

Buel report (MP3) - Download 611k
Listen to Buel report (MP3)


The U.S. commander in northern Iraq says he does not have enough manpower to secure the increasingly violent Diyala province. Major General Benjamin Mixon made the remarks to reporters at the Pentagon by videoconference from Iraq. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details from Washington.
http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-11-voa42.cfm

SEND THIS GENERAL MORE TROOPS-----LIBERALS SAY TO DO WHAT GENERALS ASK :salute:

more whack a mole, duck... more whack a mole..

So where are you going to find those troops, duck? any clue? maybe we should just send the entire military to Iraq... why fuck around? we'll do it like they did in WWII... full deployment until it's over... is that what you want?

and while we're at it... how about Mandatory Military Service for ALL? Let's conscript everyone between the ages of 18 and 26 for military service... especially the children of the government, we'll send them to the front lines... no deferments... is that what you want?

[TheStripey1]

Then stop this shit about listening to generals on the ground. You won't listen them either.

pssst... I'm not the presidunce... and I never made that claim... bush did...

[TheStripey1]

look at you backpeddle !!!!!!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

how so? you're dreamin duck... either that or you're delusional...

which is it?

[Dilloduck]

more whack a mole, duck... more whack a mole..

So where are you going to find those troops, duck? any clue? maybe we should just send the entire military to Iraq... why fuck around? we'll do it like they did in WWII... full deployment until it's over... is that what you want?

and while we're at it... how about Mandatory Military Service for ALL? Let's conscript everyone between the ages of 18 and 26 for military service... especially the children of the government, we'll send them to the front lines... no deferments... is that what you want?


WHO GIVES A SHIT-------LISTEN TO THE GENERALS ON THE GROUND !!!

[TheStripey1]

Why? I mean you are saying from the onset you saw it differently than most Americans, including the majority of the opposition party in both houses, when they were in the minority. So why were you so brilliant? You based it on what?

yes...

when bush stopped looking for osama been forgotten, I stopped supporting him... and then you had bush saying over and over and over again all that crap about hussein having WMD... I remembered what I had been taught in school about repeating a lie to the masses... keep doing it and the stupid ones will eventually believe it...

I didn't believe it for a minute...

[TheStripey1]

I think Bush should get his advice from the generals serving over there. whether he listens and hears or just listens I can't judge as I'm not privy to those discussions.And I think the the advice from the generals should carry a lot more weight than a bunch of congress critters attempting to run things from washington when they don't even have the information the president has.

The president may be 10.000 miles away but he is in charge and does run everything based on what he's informed on. He isn't and can't be in the trenches and running around the streets personally leading raids. He tells the generals what he wants and they attempt to do that. If they fail and the advice turns out to be wrong then they will be replaced with someone with another plan.

I think he should get his advice from the generals on the ground as well... too bad he only listens to the ones that agree with his civilian "advisors".

[TheStripey1]

The general on the ground WANTS MORE TROOPS !!!!! ARE YOU LISTENING ??????????????

read my reply...

[TheStripey1]

That was the old way of doing it. The difference now with the surge troops is that they go in and clear out the bad guys and they hold it. They move on to the next place and hold it. That's the reason for the extra troops. To be able to hold and secure areas taken over by the assault forces.

There is a spike in violence because al queda is surging as well. It was expected in the planning of the operations. And its expected to continue throughout the summer.

Then we are going to need thousands and thousands and thousands of more troops... are you ready for the draft?

[Dilloduck]

yes...

when bush stopped looking for osama been forgotten, I stopped supporting him... and then you had bush saying over and over and over again all that crap about hussein having WMD... I remembered what I had been taught in school about repeating a lie to the masses... keep doing it and the stupid ones will eventually believe it...

I didn't believe it for a minute...

Meanwhile---the general is STILL waiting for his troops----are you listening ???

[TheStripey1]

THE GENERAL IS WAITING ON MORE TROOPS, STRIPEY !!!

so? his province wasn't one of the chosen ones... where do you propose to find those troops? can we send your kids?

[Kathianne]

yes...

when bush stopped looking for osama been forgotten, I stopped supporting him... and then you had bush saying over and over and over again all that crap about hussein having WMD... I remembered what I had been taught in school about repeating a lie to the masses... keep doing it and the stupid ones will eventually believe it...

I didn't believe it for a minute...

Back up, right now you are sounding like a talking points memo. Never did Bush say he 'forgot' about Bin Laden, just that there were more than him, do you disagree? I assume you a bright enough not to.

So, we are left with WMD. Go from there. Where did Blix say there were none? Or not likely?

[manu1959]

It's pretty apparent, despite all of his claims, that George Bush does NOT listen to his commanders on the ground. Otherwise they would not be doing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPIi03wSfY

When generals have to retire in order to tell the president the truth, something is fundamentally wrong with the process.

so they were lying to bush when they were in country....glad they quit.....what makes them beliveable now if they were lying then.....or are they lying now.....

[TheStripey1]

That is a POV. To me no military solution means if you don't find the GD other solution now you don't belong there and can't stay.

The VN war, Afghanistan vs USSR, the recnt Israel Lebanon war and Iraq (along with a half dozen other lessor wars) all signify a paradigm shift in modern warfare reflected in the wisdom of the Powell Doctrine.

We can't occupy worth a shit with our style of military and our comfort level with casualties. That's reality. Assymetric warfare is prepared for far higher casualties, willing to escalate brutality to a much higher threshold and they can wait decades to win in the end.

It costs us $10-$30 billion/month to fight a modern war. It costs assymetric enemies as little as $1-$3 million/month to wear us down and eventually win.

We can bust up and destroy with the best of em. But if we can't get the mission accomplished and get out, we will eventually lose.

Afghanistan did play a major part in bankrupting the USSR.

These are fool's wars.

Which is partly why GB 41 left Iraq without invading Bdad.

daddy bush was way smarter than his idiot son...

[TheStripey1]

WELL ???

:finger3: keep your pants on sonny, I'm reading and posting as fast as I can... :finger3:


more whack a mole, duck... more whack a mole..

So where are you going to find those troops, duck? any clue? maybe we should just send the entire military to Iraq... why fuck around? we'll do it like they did in WWII... full deployment until it's over... is that what you want?

and while we're at it... how about Mandatory Military Service for ALL? Let's conscript everyone between the ages of 18 and 26 for military service... especially the children of the government, we'll send them to the front lines... no deferments... is that what you want?

[Dilloduck]

Then we are going to need thousands and thousands and thousands of more troops... are you ready for the draft?

Knock off the BS--people are tying to give Bush shit for not listening to what the generals are saying yet when they say something you don't like , you criticize them...your argument is typical liberal hypocrisy. :salute:

[TheStripey1]

Meanwhile---the general is STILL waiting for his troops----are you listening ???


maybe you should rush down and enlist so you can get over there and help the general... what are you waiting for?

[Dilloduck]

maybe you should rush down and enlist so you can get over there and help the general... what are you waiting for?

Only for you to admit to beng FOS. :laugh2:

[TheStripey1]

Back up, right now you are sounding like a talking points memo. Never did Bush say he 'forgot' about Bin Laden, just that there were more than him, do you disagree? I assume you a bright enough not to.


"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

White House Press Conference, March 13, 2002

[TheStripey1]

Knock off the BS--people are tying to give Bush shit for not listening to what the generals are saying yet when they say something you don't like , you criticize them...your argument is typical liberal hypocrisy. :salute:


I'm not criticizing the general, I asked YOU where you plan on finding the troops to send to Diyala Province... so?

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THEM?

can we send your kids? How about you? You're gung ho for the war... why don't you rush down and enlist and then volunteer to go kick some iraqi ass?

[Dilloduck]

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

White House Press Conference, March 13, 2002

Oh my---getting really desperate now----I thought the "solution" here was political. Whatever do we need to find bin laden for--a signature ??
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[TheStripey1]

Only for you to admit to beng FOS. :laugh2:

So if I admit to being FOS, you'll enlist? Might be worth it...

:dance:

but I don't believe you have what it takes to be a military man... I think you'd punk out on me... you'd snivel and whine and say you didn't mean it...

right, ducky?

[Dilloduck]

I'm not criticizing the general, I asked YOU where you plan on finding the troops to send to Diyala Province... so?

WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THEM?

can we send your kids? How about you? You're gung ho for the war... why don't you rush down and enlist and then volunteer to go kick some iraqi ass?

MAYBE THAT'S WHY BUSH DOES NOT DO EVERYTHING GENERALS ASK___THINK ABOUT IT !!!!

[TheStripey1]

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

White House Press Conference, March 13, 2002

so there you have it... as of March 14, 2002, the day AFTER the press conference, I stopped supporting bush...

[TheStripey1]

Oh my---getting really desperate now----I thought the "solution" here was political. Whatever do we need to find bin laden for--a signature ??
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:


kathianne said she didn't recall bush saying that he didn't care about been forgotten... so I gave her the quote... do try to keep up...

I know it's hard for you, but please, try...

[TheStripey1]

see y'all next week... do try to stay out of trouble...

except for you ducky... I expect that you will have rushed off to join up by the time I return... laffs... yeah right...

see ya!

:cheers2:

[Dilloduck]

kathianne said she didn't recall bush saying that he didn't care about been forgotten... so I gave her the quote... do try to keep up...

I know it's hard for you, but please, try...

I'm all over you like a duck on a junebug---sucks to lose but maybe you can find a topic you know something about. OWNED !

[loosecannon]

oh ya--that's what his intent is---destroying our military ! :cuckoo:


"Starving the beast" is an American conservative political strategy which uses budget deficits to attempt to force future reductions in government expenditure, especially spending on socially progressive programs. The term "beast" is used to denote government and the social programs it funds, including publicly-funded health care, welfare, educational financial aid, and Social Security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast



Norquist has been noted for his widely quoted quip: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Grover Norquist is the inventor of thew starve the beast assault on the US government.

With Blackwater and similar mercenary outfits providing about 40% of all of the real "troops" in Iraq at probably three times the cost of the US military forces, there is money to be made by destroying the military.

Why else would they be chewing up everything right down to the Army Reserves and the national guard while employing budget deficit spending that has only ever occured in the US under starve the beast admins and during WWII?

And all the while Bush refuses to listen to the proffessional military, the American people or even the freinds of his Dad who came in to bail him out after the midterm?

[Gaffer]

so there you have it... as of March 14, 2002, the day AFTER the press conference, I stopped supporting bush...

So finding bin laden is the get all end all of the war? Al queda will all give up and go home when he's found?

He's a figure head and money man of al queda. Until we can invade western pakistan we won't be getting bin laden anytime soon.

[Dilloduck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast



Grover Norquist is the inventor of thew starve the beast assault on the US government.

With Blackwater and similar mercenary outfits providing about 40% of all of the real "troops" in Iraq at probably three times the cost of the US military forces, there is money to be made by destroying the military.

Why else would they be chewing up everything right down to the Army Reserves and the national guard while employing budget deficit spending that has only ever occured in the US under starve the beast admins and during WWII?

And all the while Bush refuses to listen to the proffessional military, the American people or even the freinds of his Dad who came in to bail him out after the midterm?


YOU TOO ???? :laugh2: :laugh2:

Tell me--should Bush do everything every general on the ground tells him ?

YES or NO ?

[Doniston]

so they were lying to bush when they were in country....glad they quit.....what makes them beliveable now if they were lying then.....or are they lying now..... no, they weren't lying, they were disagreeing --which is why they were replaced, but while they were disagreeing, they couldn't broadcast their displeasure. They could only do that AFTER they were out.

[lily]

US Commander in Northern Iraq Asks for More Troops
By Meredith Buel
Washington
11 May 2007

Buel report (MP3) - Download 611k
Listen to Buel report (MP3)


The U.S. commander in northern Iraq says he does not have enough manpower to secure the increasingly violent Diyala province. Major General Benjamin Mixon made the remarks to reporters at the Pentagon by videoconference from Iraq. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details from Washington.
http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-11-voa42.cfm

SEND THIS GENERAL MORE TROOPS-----LIBERALS SAY TO DO WHAT GENERALS ASK :salute:

Ok, first off Bush told the country that we needed 20,000 men for this surge to work. Americans had a fit, we've had enough.....but he sends them. A couple of weeks later, when things have calmed down, he said well.......it looks like we need another 20,000 men to send to Iraq, people are settled down some, don't complain as much, so ok.....he gets another 20,000 men. Last week we hear, but not too many people pay attention anymore.....well it looks like we're going to need 35,000 more men.

Now reading your article it stated that there were 10,000 (I believe) Iraqi soldiers. IT'S ABOUT TIME and I think 3,500 American soldiers and it also stated that this provence has been a problem since the begining of the war......don't you think that out of the 75,000 American soldiers being sent to get Baghdad under control, so the government can start to you know.actually GOVERN, instead the Parliment is taking a vacation, I might add, after doing NOTHING, that some of those 75,000 men could go to that provence instead?

Hell at least there they will be appreciated.

[lily]

The president may be 10.000 miles away but he is in charge and does run everything based on what he's informed on. He isn't and can't be in the trenches and running around the streets personally leading raids. He tells the generals what he wants and they attempt to do that. If they fail and the advice turns out to be wrong then they will be replaced with someone with another plan.

Ok, this has me confused. If Bush is giving the orders/advice and the advise is wrong......why should they be replaced?

[loosecannon]

Ok, this has me confused. If Bush is giving the orders/advice and the advise is wrong......why should they be replaced?

because Gaffe is a fool?

[stephanie]

because Gaffe is a fool?

:lame2:

[loosecannon]

:lame2:

Gaffe is a lame fool?

[Samantha]

If a General - or ANY leader - holds his/her tongue they are worthless and SHOULD be 'forced' into retirement.It is against military law for a General to speak against the President. They can only do it after they retire.


See who we've got here tonight. We’ve got General Moseley, Air Force Chief of Staff. We’ve got General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They still support Rumsfeld. Right, you guys aren't retired yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld. Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired generals causing all this trouble: Don't let them retire! Come on, we've got a stop-loss program; let's use it on these guys. I've seen Zinni in that crowd on Wolf Blitzer. If you're strong enough to go on one of those pundit shows, you’re strong enough to stand on a bank of computers and order men into battle. Come on! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/03/145234


Cool! I'd like to read some of those articles. Got a link?I'd like to see the progress in Iraq too. He should make a thread and show us all the progress. I heard some tractors were fixed a year ago for some farmers. Is that what you mean?


In other words---If the generals on the ground don't say "cut and run" you aren't going to back them up anyway. Yet you STILL mock Bush for not listening. What integrity you have !! :lmao: :lmao:What difference does it make if we are for or against the war? We were against it from the beginning. Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. The UN inspectors weren't finding anything. We should have just gone after Al Qaeda.


Are you saying that diplomacy just might work?It's the only thing that's going to work.


Batiste spoke out on MSNBC tonight and said that Bush's pursuit of a military option is the reason his policy is failing. Ignoring the political, diplomatic, and economic options that are available insure that failure. He is absolutely correct.Absolutely.


US Commander in Northern Iraq Asks for More Troops
By Meredith Buel
Washington
11 May 2007

Buel report (MP3) - Download 611k
Listen to Buel report (MP3)


The U.S. commander in northern Iraq says he does not have enough manpower to secure the increasingly violent Diyala province. Major General Benjamin Mixon made the remarks to reporters at the Pentagon by videoconference from Iraq. VOA correspondent Meredith Buel has details from Washington.
http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-11-voa42.cfm

SEND THIS GENERAL MORE TROOPS-----LIBERALS SAY TO DO WHAT GENERALS ASK :salute:It's too late. We needed 250,000 at the beginning. Just imagine what we would need now in all this chaos. 500,000? We don't have enough. The trickle method isn't the way to win a war. See WWII.


Why? I mean you are saying from the onset you saw it differently than most Americans, including the majority of the opposition party in both houses, when they were in the minority. So why were you so brilliant? You based it on what?We based it on the fact that the UN inspectors said they weren't finding any more weapons, they had already destroyed them all. I saw it on the news in 2003 before the invasion. The fact that Al Qeada was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We needed to defeat them and the Taleban first and foremost.

One war at a time. A mighty strike by best military in the world. Crush Al Qaeda with the full force of the USA.

This is why I hate Bush. He refused. He wanted Iraq instead.


The general on the ground WANTS MORE TROOPS !!!!! ARE YOU LISTENING ??????????????We don't have enough.


THE GENERAL IS WAITING ON MORE TROOPS, STRIPEY !!!We don't have enough.


Back up, right now you are sounding like a talking points memo. Never did Bush say he 'forgot' about Bin Laden, just that there were more than him, do you disagree? I assume you a bright enough not to.

So, we are left with WMD. Go from there. Where did Blix say there were none? Or not likely?


So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html


And we knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for ninety to ninety-five percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this. They weren't going to say that Iraq was disarmed, because nobody could say that. But they definitely knew that the Iraqi capability regarding W.M.D. had been reduced to as near to zero as you could bring it and that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258


Iraq probably destroyed its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in the early 1990s, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm


so they were lying to bush when they were in country....glad they quit.....what makes them beliveable now if they were lying then.....or are they lying now.....Who was lying to Bush? The Generals that told Bush we needed 250,000 troops were forced to retire or retired in disgust because Bush wouldn't listen. Bush changed Generals when they asked for more troops, he wanted to stay the course, remember? Now he's up to Patraeas who did what Bush ordered, troop surge, too little too late. We don't have enough troops to win, and there aren't enough people signing up to fight.

The only way to win is a draft. And then we have another Vietnam.

[darin]

It is against military law for a General to speak against the President. They can only do it after they retire.



Untrue. It's the DUTY of a Military subordinate to respectfully make their disagreements known. If a General 'holds his tongue', and he disagrees passionately, its HIS failure.

[Pale Rider]

Who was lying to Bush? The Generals that told Bush we needed 250,000 troops were forced to retire or retired in disgust because Bush wouldn't listen. Bush changed Generals when they asked for more troops, he wanted to stay the course, remember? Now he's up to Patraeas who did what Bush ordered, troop surge, too little too late. We don't have enough troops to win, and there aren't enough people signing up to fight.

The only way to win is a draft. And then we have another Vietnam.

Don't worry. One way or another this thing is going to be over. If the surge works, everybody can rejoice. If the surge doesn't work, the liberals can rejoice, and we'll pull out. I just hope the rejoicing liberals will still be rejoicing when we get hit with another 9/11.

[diuretic]

Don't worry. One way or another this thing is going to be over. If the surge works, everybody can rejoice. If the surge doesn't work, the liberals can rejoice, and we'll pull out. I just hope the rejoicing liberals will still be rejoicing when we get hit with another 9/11.

When will we all know if the surge has worked or not? 21 January 2008?

[Birdzeye]

Don't worry. One way or another this thing is going to be over. If the surge works, everybody can rejoice. If the surge doesn't work, the liberals can rejoice, and we'll pull out. I just hope the rejoicing liberals will still be rejoicing when we get hit with another 9/11.


How many terrorist plots have been foiled SINCE 9/11, while we had troops in Iraq? I got a flash for you: those who hate us are still trying to terrorize us. Clearly, our presence in Iraq isn't deterring them.

[Doniston]

Untrue. It's the DUTY of a Military subordinate to respectfully make their disagreements known. If a General 'holds his tongue', and he disagrees passionately, its HIS failure. Do you really beleive the generals were fired because they DIDN'T speak out to him IN PRIVATE??? They DISAGREED. you can't do that silently, and then get fired.

[Doniston]

Don't worry. One way or another this thing is going to be over. If the surge works, everybody can rejoice. If the surge doesn't work, the liberals can rejoice, and we'll pull out. I just hope the rejoicing liberals will still be rejoicing when we get hit with another 9/11.

Are you really suggesting that Iraq was involved in the attack on 911 If not, how is that relative?

But yes, the Liberals will rejoice when we are out of that Stupid, uncalled for, deadly war.

[loosecannon]

Untrue. It's the DUTY of a Military subordinate to respectfully make their disagreements known. If a General 'holds his tongue', and he disagrees passionately, its HIS failure.


I beg to differ.

Hell even the joint chiefs of staff and sec def take orders from the pres.

It is well understood among the officer corps that subordinates do not question the orders of their superiors unless specifically asked for their opinions. The command structure in the military is very rigid with info on a need to know basis and decision making very much a top down process.

Lastly anything we ever hear about classified military operations comes to us thru approved channels like the Pentagon press secretary.

It has been well understood for hundreds of years that info is a strategic component in a theatre of war. Info is therefore carefully managed and controlled within the military and it's operations.

As evidenced by the fact that the largest intel agencies are part of the military.

Generals are simply not free to speak however they choose.

You ever hear of debriefing?

[loosecannon]

Clearly, our presence in Iraq isn't deterring them.

money quote

[lily]

Don't worry. One way or another this thing is going to be over. If the surge works, everybody can rejoice. If the surge doesn't work, the liberals can rejoice, and we'll pull out. I just hope the rejoicing liberals will still be rejoicing when we get hit with another 9/11.


I see that you already have your talking points ready, Pale. Just so I know, when does this adminitration and the Republicans in general take responsibility for their screw ups and stop blaming everything on the opposing party?

[Dilloduck]

It is against military law for a General to speak against the President. They can only do it after they retire.



I'd like to see the progress in Iraq too. He should make a thread and show us all the progress. I heard some tractors were fixed a year ago for some farmers. Is that what you mean?

What difference does it make if we are for or against the war? We were against it from the beginning. Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. The UN inspectors weren't finding anything. We should have just gone after Al Qaeda.

It's the only thing that's going to work.

Absolutely.

It's too late. We needed 250,000 at the beginning. Just imagine what we would need now in all this chaos. 500,000? We don't have enough. The trickle method isn't the way to win a war. See WWII.

We based it on the fact that the UN inspectors said they weren't finding any more weapons, they had already destroyed them all. I saw it on the news in 2003 before the invasion. The fact that Al Qeada was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We needed to defeat them and the Taleban first and foremost.

One war at a time. A mighty strike by best military in the world. Crush Al Qaeda with the full force of the USA.

This is why I hate Bush. He refused. He wanted Iraq instead.

We don't have enough.

We don't have enough.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/21/144258

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm

Who was lying to Bush? The Generals that told Bush we needed 250,000 troops were forced to retire or retired in disgust because Bush wouldn't listen. Bush changed Generals when they asked for more troops, he wanted to stay the course, remember? Now he's up to Patraeas who did what Bush ordered, troop surge, too little too late. We don't have enough troops to win, and there aren't enough people signing up to fight.

The only way to win is a draft. And then we have another Vietnam.

Attempting to summarize a whole thread with cute little quips is a bitch aint it. This whole argument regarding Bush not listening to his generals on the ground has been proven to be yet another weak ass liberal ploy and a disingenuous argument. You all could give a shit what the generals on the ground say unless it happens to suit your agenda at the time. When they ask for more troops you mock them or suggest we reinstate the draft--as if you would support it. Try another tact. This one has been shot all and exposed as the fraud it is. :fu:

[darin]

I beg to differ.

Hell even the joint chiefs of staff and sec def take orders from the pres.

It is well understood among the officer corps that subordinates do not question the orders of their superiors unless specifically asked for their opinions.

Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. I've PERSONALLY seen Colonels and Brig. Generals Disagree with a 3-star on a regular basis. What you're saying is the stuff of movies.


The command structure in the military is very rigid with info on a need to know basis and decision making very much a top down process.

That is 'about' right, but exactly wrong. If a leader is not sharing information with their subordinates AND soliciting their feedback, the leader is FAILING. The army has a VERY good philosophy concerning information. It's called 'Who Else Needs to Know." When it comes to decisions it's a subordinates DUTY to disagree, if it's their opinion. When I tell my boss "I don't agree, sir - we may want to approach the problem THIS way...." He's got the choice to tell me "Thanks for your input, but we'll do it MY way." or not. If he cannot trust me to be honest, and speak up, it's ME who has failed.



Generals are simply not free to speak however they choose.


Again - that's the stuff of meetings. How long has it been since you've sat in on a meeting among generals? For me, it was about 3 weeks ago.

[loosecannon]

Completely wrong. Utterly wrong. I've PERSONALLY seen Colonels and Brig. Generals Disagree with a 3-star on a regular basis. What you're saying is the stuff of movies.



That is 'about' right, but exactly wrong. If a leader is not sharing information with their subordinates AND soliciting their feedback, the leader is FAILING. The army has a VERY good philosophy concerning information. It's called 'Who Else Needs to Know." When it comes to decisions it's a subordinates DUTY to disagree, if it's their opinion. When I tell my boss "I don't agree, sir - we may want to approach the problem THIS way...." He's got the choice to tell me "Thanks for your input, but we'll do it MY way." or not. If he cannot trust me to be honest, and speak up, it's ME who has failed.



Again - that's the stuff of meetings. How long has it been since you've sat in on a meeting among generals? For me, it was about 3 weeks ago.

Your "objections" are hollow.

You are correct that when asked for their opinions or in a command position where their inputs are prerequisite a subordinate must offer truthfully. That is either in response to an request (order) to provide info or a specified responsibility of the sub officer to provide info on an ongoing basis.

And it is also true that when performance assessments of all kinds are made the military is unusually candid in it's attitudes.

But that does not apply to a CIC who is opposed to dissenting POV. Esp one who makes up his mind apart from military input what his course of action is going to be.

Face it DMP the Iraq war began and drags on to this day for political reasons. Bush's attitude begins with statements like "I want to see a strategy for Iraq that will succeed".

And you know that because you heard him say so in the SOTU addy.

So he has already limited the generals candid response to a subset of options.

And you know as well as I do how long a general's command is gonna last if he does not accept the president's approach as viable.

[loosecannon]

This whole argument regarding Bush not listening to his generals on the ground has been proven to be yet another weak ass liberal ploy and a disingenuous argument.

Wow! Which thread have you been reading?

[Psychoblues]

I think that is the real problem here, lc. Most of these rabid rw's don't read anything other than these threads and they don't pay good attention to even that!!!!!!




Wow! Which thread have you been reading?

Great Shot!!!!!!!!

[darin]

Your "objections" are hollow.

You are correct that when asked for their opinions or in a command position where their inputs are prerequisite a subordinate must offer truthfully. That is either in response to an request (order) to provide info or a specified responsibility of the sub officer to provide info on an ongoing basis.

And it is also true that when performance assessments of all kinds are made the military is unusually candid in it's attitudes.

But that does not apply to a CIC who is opposed to dissenting POV. Esp one who makes up his mind apart from military input what his course of action is going to be.

Face it DMP the Iraq war began and drags on to this day for political reasons. Bush's attitude begins with statements like "I want to see a strategy for Iraq that will succeed".

And you know that because you heard him say so in the SOTU addy.

So he has already limited the generals candid response to a subset of options.

And you know as well as I do how long a general's command is gonna last if he does not accept the president's approach as viable.


So - you REALLY cannot counter ANYTHING I've said, so you change the topic and address OTHER things? Just admit you are wrong and move on. Easy.

[loosecannon]

So - you REALLY cannot counter ANYTHING I've said, so you change the topic and address OTHER things? Just admit you are wrong and move on. Easy.

I did counter what you said and re asserted my previous points. And I said your objections were hollow. You made statements that only appeared to contradict my previous points because of the way that you framed your response.

There is a huge diff between being asked an opinion and being responsible to provide input and being a general whose job is to find a strategy in Iraq "that will succeeed according to Bush's definition of success".

The mere fact that Bush dictates the outcomes limits the input a general can give. And generals who dissent from that predetermined outcome don't last.

There isn't anything particularly sinister about that. I would call it status quo in the military.

But it does contradict Bush's continuous claim that he listens to the generals when he crafts his approach.

Bush makes his decisions for political reasons and then demands a military remedy.

[darin]

I did counter what you said and re asserted my previous points. And I said your objections were hollow. You made statements that only appeared to contradict my previous points because of the way that you framed your response.

So the best you got is 'hollow'. Eh?



There is a huge diff between being asked an opinion and being responsible to provide input and being a general whose job is to find a strategy in Iraq "that will succeeed according to Bush's definition of success".

The mere fact that Bush dictates the outcomes limits the input a general can give. And generals who dissent from that predetermined outcome don't last.

There isn't anything particularly sinister about that. I would call it status quo in the military.

But it does contradict Bush's continuous claim that he listens to the generals when he crafts his approach.

Bush makes his decisions for political reasons and then demands a military remedy.

Basically, you're just re-stating your position, which I've already told you is not a very-well educated/experienced position. Good luck with that.

[TheStripey1]

Attempting to summarize a whole thread with cute little quips is a bitch aint it. This whole argument regarding Bush not listening to his generals on the ground has been proven to be yet another weak ass liberal ploy and a disingenuous argument. You all could give a shit what the generals on the ground say unless it happens to suit your agenda at the time. When they ask for more troops you mock them or suggest we reinstate the draft--as if you would support it. Try another tact. This one has been shot all and exposed as the fraud it is.


Are you saying that both General Batiste and General Eaton are liberals? They're not, but since when do you lets facts get in the way of your opinions?

Maybe you should watch the videos of what those two generals have to say about bush listening to THEM when they had their commands IN Iraq...

VOTEVETS.org (http://www.votevets.org)

and obtw, I'm in favor of Mandatory Military Service for ALL. WITH the children of elected officials in the Executive and Legislative branches of government in front line units. Because I want the leaders to KNOW exactly how it feels to send their children off to die.

And you can verify that this has been my position for years by asking Mr.P and Gadget(former marine)... hopefully, they'll remember cuz it has been four years since I first put up the thread... hmmmm, wonders if P & G have been taking their ginko...

[Dilloduck]

Are you saying that both General Batiste and General Eaton are liberals? They're not, but since when do you lets facts get in the way of your opinions?

Maybe you should watch the videos of what those two generals have to say about bush listening to THEM when they had their commands IN Iraq...

VOTEVETS.org (http://www.votevets.org)

and obtw, I'm in favor of Mandatory Military Service for ALL. WITH the children of elected officials in the Executive and Legislative branches of government in front line units. Because I want the leaders to KNOW exactly how it feels to send their children off to die.

And you can verify that this has been my position for years by asking Mr.P and Gadget(former marine)... hopefully, they'll remember cuz it has been four years since I first put up the thread... hmmmm, wonders if P & G have been taking their ginko...

I don't give a damn what political persuasion these generals favor. That's NOT THE POINT. The point is that you don't think we should have ever gone into Iraq in the first place and when things go crappy over there your bunch has done EVERYTHING it can think of to sabotage the effort. WHY ? POLITICS. The Democrats could not survive a Bush victory in Iraq and you know it.

You want mandatory service for all ? Well get some democrat to propose it and try to run it through Congress but you'd be making a huge mistake. Draftees suck compared to an all volunteer force. This is just another silly ploy to make Bush look like a chickenhawk. WTF would we want the Bush twins in Iraq for? You want them to cover YOUR BACK ????? :poke:

You jump up and down bitching about the solution in Iraq being a political. Then Bush should be listening TO DIPLOMATS---NOT GENERALS. There's general in Iraq RIGHT NOW who wants more troops. You gonna stand up and tell Bush to send him some? I'd ask you to make up your mind but liberals never do.

[loosecannon]

Basically, you're just re-stating your position, which I've already told you is not a very-well educated/experienced position. Good luck with that.

I was right the first time, your objections are still hollow.

We aren't talking about the exceptions you mentioned, we are talking about generals being told what to "make it so". By Bush.

Bush begins with a result, demands a stategy to acheive it. A littany of failures ensue, Bush keeps demanding results that can not be acheived within the parameters that he sets.

Bush doesn't listen to anyone. Haven't you learned anything in the last 7 years?

[loosecannon]

hysterical sed: Draftees suck compared to an all volunteer force. This is just another silly ploy to make Bush look like a chickenhawk.

Which must explain why the enlistment standards have been dramatically reduced thru the course of the current conflict.

Listen Hysterical, Bush IS a chickenhawk, as is clearly evident from a cursory examination of his life. He is also a fortunate son who never went to prison when he was busted for drugs or to war when it was his turn to serve.

And excuse me but really son you simply have no basis for accusing the dems of politicizing anything.

The Bush admin just set the new world record for politicizing EVERYTHING. Right down to trying to get asscroft to approve illegal wiretapps on his sick bed.

I mean sure the dems are miserable political hacks. The GOP are the A Team of political hacks. They are the elitest of the elite at corruption, obstruction of justice, that "above all law" attitude.

Get a grip son.

[Doniston]

I was right the first time, your objections are still hollow.

We aren't talking about the exceptions you mentioned, we are talking about generals being told what to "make it so". By Bush.

Bush begins with a result, demands a stategy to acheive it. A littany of failures ensue, Bush keeps demanding results that can not be acheived within the parameters that he sets.

Bush doesn't listen to anyone. Haven't you learned anything in the last 7 years?

And THAT, in my opinion is absolutely true, which is one of the prime reasons I am a DITW BUSH-BASHER.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I see that you already have your talking points ready, Pale. Just so I know, when does this adminitration and the Republicans in general take responsibility for their screw ups and stop blaming everything on the opposing party?

when the Cubs win the world series...

[nevadamedic]

It's pretty apparent, despite all of his claims, that George Bush does NOT listen to his commanders on the ground. Otherwise they would not be doing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPIi03wSfY

When generals have to retire in order to tell the president the truth, something is fundamentally wrong with the process.

You like to make things up as you go dont you?

[Doniston]

You like to make things up as you go dont you? What do you think he is making up? It appears to me he was speaking truth.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You like to make things up as you go dont you?

You like to believe in the hallucinations of the neocons, don't you? Welcome to the 28% Club.

[lily]

You like to make things up as you go dont you?

Can you tell me how he made that up? You seem to like to throw accusations, but I don't see any back up from you..........you wouldn't be making things up, would you?

[Psychoblues]

OK, I'll go along with the aversions.



You like to make things up as you go dont you?

Give my your interpretations and don't make anything up, OK?

Pissant.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Four days and no response. I guess HE was just making it up as he went along. Either that or he couldn't figure out how to make those handclapping emoticons into a cogent response. :clap:

[stephanie]

Four days and no response. I guess HE was just making it up as he went along. Either that or he couldn't figure out how to make those hand clapping emoticons into a cogent response. :clap:


Or.......It might be..that we have forgotten about this post???
After all you yourself said...it's FOUR day's old....

Man...you and Psycho......go through and dig up old post...over and over and over again....
And then thump yourselves on the back.........hey yuk...look I won...yuk..

:cuckoo:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Or.......It might be..that we have forgotten about this post???
After all you yourself said...it's FOUR day's old....

Man...you and Psycho......go through and dig up old post...over and over and over again....
And then thump yourselves on the back.........hey yuk...look I won...yuk..

:cuckoo:

Nevadaboy is just afraid of getting owned and so he's dodging the issue. Nice of you to take up his mantle and fight his battles for him.

Four days old, Staphylococcus? I noticed you jumped right in and wanted to mix it up some more. Stop yer whining.