"I listen to the commanders on the ground"...right.
- Thread starter NedreckSavant
- Start date
We have yet to have a war where we didn't stay in the country for decades. Yep there is some stableization that needs to happen in Iraq but America isn't the one that will stableize, it will be the Iraqis.
All these generals are planners right? What do they say needs to be done or did they just come out critical of the way things are going? Don't get me wrong now, we are not winning anything in Iraq because the will of Americans has been broken. Why would I want to fight for America in Iraq while the politicions give our country away to the illegals? America is lost.
25
NedreckSavant
New member
My (limited, always limited) understanding was that there was at first a general or 2 calling for some action but as time wore on there came to be more...until we're at the point now of a half dozen. I don't believe they're affiliated or had a round-table powwow to bring down that good man, mr rumsfeld, I think it's more a matter of a reporter or 2 looking around and going "wtf?? hmmm"...but then again, it could just be a liberal left wing blah blah blah conspiracy.
Also, did anyone catch cnn yesterday where they played the clip of Bush talking about the problem of presidents leaving their problems for following presidents to clean up...then they showed someone asking him if he was going to finish what he started and guess what he said! He'll have to leave it for someone else, he's already resigned to letting someone else clean up his mess!! God bless amurica. Someone get me a flag to wave...so I can stab myself in the eyes, I just can't watch anymore.
Also, did anyone catch cnn yesterday where they played the clip of Bush talking about the problem of presidents leaving their problems for following presidents to clean up...then they showed someone asking him if he was going to finish what he started and guess what he said! He'll have to leave it for someone else, he's already resigned to letting someone else clean up his mess!! God bless amurica. Someone get me a flag to wave...so I can stab myself in the eyes, I just can't watch anymore.
Rummy was suspect in my eyes from the very beginning. He's one of the "go to" guys establishment politicians glom onto when big changes are afoot.
My personal Rummy BS meter pegged when active duty generals publicly criticized estimated troop levels. Then when the war got under way we were treated to the sight of US armored columns being attacked on the flanks with impunity. Furthermore no interest was paid when the looting started because we were too busy shooting and scooting to worry about things like looting. Then word came out that we were bypassing ammo dumps while being attacked by weapons contained in the ammo dumps. Then I hear we've got cannon cockers clearing rooms in Iraqi homes. I sez to myself, "Myself, where are the MP's?" Well, seems the MP's were stateside waiting to be deployed. WTF???? All in all the picture I saw during the war was an under-resourced army in a tough position. Thankfully the Iraqi army was non-existent at the time to take advantage of our resource failures.
That said, Rummy's job is to bust up the pentagon and make it a little more fleet of foot. Once again people focus on individual personalities and afix blame for bad situations. Reality is once again congress creates an environment and then sits back while others take the heat for its asinine decisions. Think it odd that we are in the middle of a freakin' war and we're still figuring out how to cut back on manpower and armaments? Reason is congress has passed a series of laws to downsize the military AND HAS MADE NO ALLOWANCE FOR BEING IN A FREAKIN' WAR. Yeah, Rummy has his warts and Bush has his warts, but lets start holding congress responsible for its incredibly stupid and ill-advised actions. Rummy ain't no prize but congress is a gaggle of deluded fools and these fools control the money.
My personal Rummy BS meter pegged when active duty generals publicly criticized estimated troop levels. Then when the war got under way we were treated to the sight of US armored columns being attacked on the flanks with impunity. Furthermore no interest was paid when the looting started because we were too busy shooting and scooting to worry about things like looting. Then word came out that we were bypassing ammo dumps while being attacked by weapons contained in the ammo dumps. Then I hear we've got cannon cockers clearing rooms in Iraqi homes. I sez to myself, "Myself, where are the MP's?" Well, seems the MP's were stateside waiting to be deployed. WTF???? All in all the picture I saw during the war was an under-resourced army in a tough position. Thankfully the Iraqi army was non-existent at the time to take advantage of our resource failures.
That said, Rummy's job is to bust up the pentagon and make it a little more fleet of foot. Once again people focus on individual personalities and afix blame for bad situations. Reality is once again congress creates an environment and then sits back while others take the heat for its asinine decisions. Think it odd that we are in the middle of a freakin' war and we're still figuring out how to cut back on manpower and armaments? Reason is congress has passed a series of laws to downsize the military AND HAS MADE NO ALLOWANCE FOR BEING IN A FREAKIN' WAR. Yeah, Rummy has his warts and Bush has his warts, but lets start holding congress responsible for its incredibly stupid and ill-advised actions. Rummy ain't no prize but congress is a gaggle of deluded fools and these fools control the money.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If one makes this a Dem/Rep or Conservative/Liberal issue then you are missing the boat.
Rumsfeld and company were in charge of planning the war. They consistently underestimated the force needed to take control of the country and did not understand how to deal with the occupation.
They were flat out incompetent and this cost lives.
Those who blindly support Rumsfeld and ignore his performance because of some liberal vs.conservative crap probably think those generals are liberals who want abortion, gays in the military and to take away their guns. They are part of the UN and the Elders of Zion. It is just like an American version of the Taliban's crap.
It is a performance issue and a competency issue and given what was said before the invasion and the results - it is time for Rumsfeld to go.
Rumsfeld and company were in charge of planning the war. They consistently underestimated the force needed to take control of the country and did not understand how to deal with the occupation.
They were flat out incompetent and this cost lives.
Those who blindly support Rumsfeld and ignore his performance because of some liberal vs.conservative crap probably think those generals are liberals who want abortion, gays in the military and to take away their guns. They are part of the UN and the Elders of Zion. It is just like an American version of the Taliban's crap.
It is a performance issue and a competency issue and given what was said before the invasion and the results - it is time for Rumsfeld to go.
I don't know whether it was possible to plan for an occupation like the one that's going on in Iraq or not. I doubt if anybody on this board has the answer to that one, either.
I also don't think that the grumblings of six retired generals amountsto much more than a pimple on a gnat's ass. There are thousands of generals and admirals. Many of them are "old school" folks who were/are pissed with Rumsfeld for his streamlining of the military.
Clark doesn't even deserve a comment. He lost his NATO command because of his lack of character.
I also don't think that the grumblings of six retired generals amountsto much more than a pimple on a gnat's ass. There are thousands of generals and admirals. Many of them are "old school" folks who were/are pissed with Rumsfeld for his streamlining of the military.
Clark doesn't even deserve a comment. He lost his NATO command because of his lack of character.
Yes, I'm aware. How does that suggest the accusation given?
"the military commander on the ground who aided and abetted"
Was Clark the "military commander on the ground"? If so, please provide proof of this.
Did Clark "aid and abet" the government at Waco? Again, if so please prove how.
And what about what his boss says?
"the military commander on the ground who aided and abetted"
Was Clark the "military commander on the ground"? If so, please provide proof of this.
Did Clark "aid and abet" the government at Waco? Again, if so please prove how.
And what about what his boss says?
Army Lt. Gen. Horace Grady "Pete" Taylor said:
But....
Even supposing that this unfounded accusation is indeed true, how does it prove that Clark is wrong about Rumsfeld? Hint: it doesn't.
This is yet another cheap stunt employed by the intellectually dishonest: poisoning the well. Attempt to discredit the source of an argument, thus discrediting whatever the source might say.
Even supposing that this unfounded accusation is indeed true, how does it prove that Clark is wrong about Rumsfeld? Hint: it doesn't.
This is yet another cheap stunt employed by the intellectually dishonest: poisoning the well. Attempt to discredit the source of an argument, thus discrediting whatever the source might say.
NedreckSavant
New member
Rather than see this post go the way of the dodo due to any innsufficient signal/noise ratios, let me as you this (directed to carbiner and rivers), You think we should still keep old man rumsfeld at the helm? I don't care about the generals, they were meant to be but small weights in the scale of the issue. I'm concerned about one of the big kahunas.
Nedreck,
I would say that the generals are a vital part of the argument. I mean...I'm not about to argue how to run a football team with Bill Cowher and I'm darn sure not going to presume to know better how to fight and win a war than this group.
Is Rumsfeld incompetent? YES!!
But if the Bush administration decides to toss him overboard what makes you think they'd replace him with anybody better? Isn't it better to hang on to him, ask him questions, then do the opposite of what he suggests?
I would say that the generals are a vital part of the argument. I mean...I'm not about to argue how to run a football team with Bill Cowher and I'm darn sure not going to presume to know better how to fight and win a war than this group.
Is Rumsfeld incompetent? YES!!
But if the Bush administration decides to toss him overboard what makes you think they'd replace him with anybody better? Isn't it better to hang on to him, ask him questions, then do the opposite of what he suggests?
NedreckSavant
New member
I was just hoping for all of us to possibly stand on some common ground, after that we can all debate who'd be a better choice to run things (mr. powell? no really).
I don't know about keeping him so that he can maintain the status quo, I'm almost in favor of throwing reason out the window and simply doing the opposite of anything he's done thus far (the george castanza course of action). If the current course is what's reasonable then I feels it's time for some unreasonable actions...(take it as thou wilt)
I don't know about keeping him so that he can maintain the status quo, I'm almost in favor of throwing reason out the window and simply doing the opposite of anything he's done thus far (the george castanza course of action). If the current course is what's reasonable then I feels it's time for some unreasonable actions...(take it as thou wilt)
I suspect that Powell isn't going to touch this administration with a 10 foot pole.
Remember that we're talking about the folks who picked Rumsfeld in the first place. Not exactly good judges of competence. They're the ones who have to fill the vacancy. Any reason to suspect they'll do better this time?
Remember that we're talking about the folks who picked Rumsfeld in the first place. Not exactly good judges of competence. They're the ones who have to fill the vacancy. Any reason to suspect they'll do better this time?