What real patriots are saying about R... Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online
Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

M-SO Message Board » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through August 12, 2006 » Archive through May 9, 2006 » What real patriots are saying about Rummy « Previous Next »

  Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through April 16, 2006thempajc40 4-16-06  2:18 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page          

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1958
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 5:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

good for you, ajc. enjoy the day. it couldn't be better.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4983
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you Innisowen, it was a great day...

Listen, Tom R. The fact is they can speak out while serving in the military. That's the way the system works, but these Generals can't have it both ways. As I said before, "In his own words Eaton said, "And commanders are responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen in their units, the good and the bad.”

Therefore, once they leave the military, you can only take what they say with a grain of salt. It's all BS like testifying in court without being sworn in.

IMO, they've lost their credability and betrayed the oath they made as officers to serve their country... Our country is at war and these bastards are undermining our entire system. They are trying to make others wrong so they can look good...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13685
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 7:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

As I understand it, it is against the rule and a court-martial-able (is that a word?) offense to speak out against the government while serving. It is insubordination. Am I wrong?

Your last paragraph seems to contradict your first. They're undermining the system, but they can speak out when in the military? I think it's one or the other. Which is it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1960
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 8:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting that AJC would say that generals (all of whom have served their country for at least 25 years and most of whom served in Vietnam) have "lost their credability (sic) and betrayed the oath they made as officers to serve their country..."

Below is the military oath of officers that I took as a young LT, and that these well-regarded generals (if they were not capable and well-regarded they would not have risen to the rank of general) took:

"I, (name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I am trying to figure out where they "betrayed the oath they made as officers to serve their country," as AJC states above.

They served their country well, and now that they are out of uniform, they are free to speak their minds about the capabilities of Don Rumsfeld as a wartime SoD.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn

Post Number: 4229
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 8:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Replace Constitution with George W. Bush and it all makes sense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro

Post Number: 2893
Registered: 5-2004


Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

How does this make them look good? Every one of them has said that they are responsible for errors made on their watch.

If this happened during Clinton's presidency, you can bet Art would be out there hailing these men as heroes. It's incredible how partisanship can blind someone so completely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1961
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AJC is partisan, and that's OK. We're all partisan to some degree.

The real issue is that AJC has it all wrong. Saying that these generals "betrayed the oath they made as officers to serve their country" is one-way, flat-arse-right-out-the-door incorrect.

They served their country honorably in uniform, and now they wish to set the record straight about the SoD's ability to lead DoD in time of war.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro

Post Number: 2894
Registered: 5-2004


Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I did not mean to imply that all partisanship automatically blinds people. I meant that it is possible to be so partisan as to be blinded from seeing reality.

Partisanship is good, to some extent. It prompts debate. But can also lead people to incorrect conclusions based on ideology and not rational thought.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1962
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rastro:

I see your point. What you say may be the case of our friend here who misconstrues the purpose and meaning of the Military Oath.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4746
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Partisanship is good to the extent it prompts debate; unfortunately some kinds of partisanship aim to quash debate totally. Downright un-American. Serving your country never forces you to give up your rights as a free citizen of a democracy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1964
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 2:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Tom:

Thank you. It's important to emphasize that even generals have the right of freedom of speech, especially when they're no longer in uniform.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4987
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 7:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

...where have these so called Generals been for the past thirty years or so? And, why are they just coming out now?

Where were these Generals when Clinton was in office for eight years running our military down to bare bones? This thread about these Generals is stupid as they are. Secretary Rumsfeld is the best and most successful SOD in modern American history, and has clearly has taken on more responsibility, and accomplished more than any other I can think of...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn

Post Number: 4235
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 7:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A number of Army generals dislike Rumsfeld because he is trying to convert the Army into something that floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. This approach has been tried off and on throughout military history. At the end of the day, the heavy equipment is always brought back because it is heavy equipment that wins wars. Specifically, the advance on Baghdad was at a relatively low cost in killed and wounded because the Army had enough heavy equipment (aka tanks).

Now, as for the assertion that "Secretary Rumsfeld is the best and most successful SOD in modern American history, and has clearly has taken on more responsibility, and accomplished more than any other I can think of...
", I was wondering if that statement could be supported by missions accomplished as opposed to missions started.

And don't claim the defeat of Saddam Hussein. That was not even the end of the beginning. That was just the beginning.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1967
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 8:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AJC is a nice guy, I am sure. But he is all wet on this topic and he has lost his grasp of the history of the past 20 years.

If you look at the plans for the military during the past 15-20 years, you realize that military downsizing started in the Reagan administration and continued in the administration of Bush 41 due to the fall of Communism and the end of the Cold War.

In addition, the major Reagan admininistration's military spending was focused on such things as star wars initiatives, with a detrimental effect on monies available for conventional land forces.

In the early 1990s, the Bush I Administration began to reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats.

That was a policy initiated by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (SoD from January 1989 to January 1993). We now know him as Vice President Dick Cheney, in case anyone was wondering.

President Clinton continued what his predecessors initiated.

If Rumsfeld, on the other hand, "is the best and most successful SOD in modern American history" (to quote AJC above, and I do so heartily agree when anyone calls Rumsfeld a SOD) here's a useful citation from a RAND Corporation study about today's Army. It makes a different point about how effective and successful the head of the DOD is:

"A recent study by the RAND Corporation, a military think-tank, "Stretched Thin: Army Forces for Sustained Operations" found that the troop shortage in the Army is so severe that it calls into question the Pentagon's policy of being able to fight two major regional wars at the same time while also having sufficient soldiers for the war on terrorism and providing security in America.

A recent meeting of the National Governors' Association, which brings together the governors of the states, registered the governors' concern that deployment of National Guard soldiers in Iraq was leaving their states unable to deal with possible natural disasters and other emergencies, with one governor exclaiming that 'we don't have personnel – whether it is full time or part time – to take care of all the needs and concerns of Americans'."

In addition, recruitment and retention in the military are not good at this point.

Sources point out that enlistees may be re-upping at a greater than expected rate. At the same time, the DoD reports that officers up to the rank of major are opting to get out of the army in record numbers. That does two things: it reduces the stable of future leaders and generals, and discourages younger officers who might stay on because the very people that they can learn from, are leaving the service.

Yup, Rumsfeld sure is a sod, but he is not a good SoD.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13724
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The downsizing was called the "peace dividend" when it started.

Once again, Art: generals can't criticize their chain of command while in service. Once out of service, they are free to say whatever they like. If you disagree, when can an American criticize its government?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4753
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Implicit in ajc's last post was that it would have been OK for them to criticize Clinton. In fact, he attacks Clinton himself for "running our military down to bare bones"-- yet if I remember correctly ajc has indicated he's a veteran himself.

Why the double standard?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4754
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 11:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Implicit in ajc's last post was that it would have been OK for them to criticize Clinton. In fact, he attacks Clinton himself for "running our military down to bare bones"-- yet if I remember correctly ajc has indicated he's a veteran himself.

Why the double standard?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4989
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 1:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

...yes, I am a veteran Tom, so what does that mean to you?

“President Clinton continued what his predecessors initiated.” What kind of stupid excuse is that? Sounds like a typical Clinton supporter cop out!!!! Thank God President Bush didn't follow his predecessor.

Noglider, the downsizing of our military spending was not a peace dividend. As it turned out, it was more like “Pandemonium at the Pentagon”. Where were these six Generals while this was going on? I’ll repeat my position again. The time for the Generals to “criticize the military plans”, not criticize their superiors, was when they were on active duty and had the ear and respect of their superiors…

So, this chatter from these six Generals seems to be mostly about Rumsfeld and his continued success in changing the military. Other than that, it’s not very clear what their complaints are all about. FWIW, increasing numbers of Generals are speaking up against the six of them.

IMHO, if they are so against their former boss, why didn’t they just resign in protest? Their arguments now are weak as farts, and smells like a lot of self-serving crap. Meanwhile, the real joke here is there are over 8,000 Generals and Admirals on active duty, and over 80,000 of them retired.

General Zinni is another one of those double talking fools. In 2001 he was saying we needed to do something about Sadams WMD and now he’s saying there were none. One after the other they stumble with their stupid rhetoric.

Tom, if you disagree with the government, as an American you can criticize your government and its leaders all you want. All of you can knock your socks off if that’s what turns you on. Personally, I think all of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Real change is found at the ballot box, not the soapbox!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

tom
Citizen
Username: Tom

Post Number: 4755
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 8:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well a couple of points. One, you can't say,

Quote:

"These so called military men carry the honor of their titles with them for the rest of their lives. They can command public attention because of their titles. However, with this honor comes the responsibility and respect of using that title, and for the chain of command, no different than if they were still on active duty. . . . If they are so inclined to speak out against their superiors, let them first publicly renounce their titles and all other privileges given to them before they do. "


And then go bashing Clinton. Because you're doing the same thing that you criticize them for doing. Unless you're saying that generals have less rights than enlisted men or other officers.

Second, of the 80,000 retired generals and admirals, how many of them have direct experience with Rumsfeld in this administration, as these six do? Do you understand the disconnect between saying that generals shouldn't be speaking out against their leadership, and pointing out that 8,000 active-duty generals haven't criticized Rumsfeld? Maybe they feel the same way you do, and in fact 7,999 of them wish that he'd resign but are keeping quiet.

Third, the "peace dividend" was real. We were facing an opponent, the Soviet Union, with massive amounts of troops, materiel, tanks, artillery, air power and nuclear weapons poised on the edge of NATO territory in western Europe. To counter that very real threat, we needed tremendous resources ready-to-go at all times. Once the USSR broke up, and the Warsaw Pact nations became independent and friendly to the west (including the reunification of Germany) that level of preparedness was no longer necessary.

In fact, it still isn't. We're not going to stop a 9/11-style al Qaeda attack with ICBMs or tank columns; we're not engaging in M.A.D. with Iraq or even Iran; and there is no place that we would expect a large-scale land invasion that would need to be repelled.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1969
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

President Bush, through his SoD Rumsfeld, has not increased the size of the military in any substantial way, AJC.

Did you not read the comment from the RAND Corporation indicating how thinly spread our military is now and has no capacity for taking on another conflict, if god forbid, one should arise. That is partly because of Rummy's strategy of a lean fighting force. That strategy is for a force that is not bogged down in combat in two countries, but one that puts out a brush fire quickly and moves to the next one. Except that the strategy is not working in the face of a real situation which the SoD didn't count on.

Also, this absolute and ridiculous whopper from AJC. It's so over the top that he has to be kidding:
"Meanwhile, the real joke here is there are over 8,000 Generals and Admirals on active duty, and over 80,000 of them retired."

8,000 generals and admirals on active duty? Jesus god alive, we would then have the top-heaviest military force on earth, and it would be no wonder that we can't get anything done.

Let's assume that 4,000 of the officers are Army generals. Then let's say that we have an army of about 500,000 soldiers. That would mean we have one general for every 125 soldiers. That would be insane! The Table of Organization would never allow it. There aren't even that many Captains!

We can make the same assumption about numbers of admirals.

AJC is smoking something really powerful, or he is getting his daily dose of
information from his pop-up toaster(Is he talking to Jesus, like GWB?).

I prefer to think that AJC isn't serious and he's pulling everyone's leg.

So, to paraphrase AJC and continue his incomplete thought, I'll say:

Yes, real change is found in the ballot box, but the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the soapbox.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1972
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 9:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And if we bring back the soapbox often enough and loud enough, people will see

through the s--tscreen (I could have said smokescreen but didn't want to) that the

current administration puts up to befuddle the citizenry, distract its supporters

from seeing reality, and make many of us ashamed of what the administration is

doing in the name of "spreading freedom," as though it were a kind of manure you

can apply to a field.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk

Post Number: 11239
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Art, before further attempts to trash Tony Zinni I would suggest you read his newly published book or at the very least the book review in today's New York Time. General Zinni has a long history of writing and speaking on Iraq dating back to well before 2003 and containing numerous warnings of what actually happened.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4992
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"And then go bashing Clinton. Because you're doing the same thing that you criticize them for doing..."

I'm not bashing Clinton, and I'm not doing the same thing as the Generals are doing. Get real! As for the Generals having less rights than enlisted men or other officers, that's crazy. They have their rights, and rank has its privilege, known as RHIP... Listen Tom, deal with the facts, not with your maybe this or maybe that. The fact is there are a few Generals that disagree with the way Rumsfeld is running the war... so what? They should have used their influence when they had their chance to make a real difference. What they are doing now is strictly political. And, IMHO, they have done a great disservice to the military and themselves. Shame, shame on them!!!!

Do you really believe because of the opinions of these few disgruntled men, the entire United States Military, the President and his Cabinet, and the Congress should stand at attention and change course on our war on terror? Do you believe these few weak, whiney, has-beens deserve the attention they’re getting?

These Jerky Generals are as bad if not worst than their old pal John Kerry. Maybe they want to run for President too? You people must all be delirious!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1975
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AJC:

You seem to avoid my comments about the "8,000 generals and admirals" who are in our military today. Get a copy of the Table of Organization.

I would laugh my arse off at an army that had one general for every 125 troopers. It would be like "F Troop."

You seem like a good guy. Just please check that you have a net under you before you let go of the trapeze.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4993
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

“ I would suggest you read Tony Zinni’s newly published book.”

There you have it! Say no more Bob, the whore is all about selling his books. Just as I thought, another money grabbing slug trying to make a dishonest buck at the expense of his comrades. The man sucks in "my book", and I don't care what he said...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13727
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Art, suppose a retired general had a valid point. What should he do? And take, as a given, that he's already retired.

And if he has a point, what should we do?

You're so sure they're speaking at the wrong time, but is it possible they're saying the right thing at the wrong time? Would you know it if you heard it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1976
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

AJC:

"Do you really believe because of the opinions of these few disgruntled men, the entire United States Military, the President and his Cabinet, and the Congress should stand at attention and change course on our war on terror? Do you believe these few weak, whiney, has-beens deserve the attention they’re getting?"

From this quote of yours from above, I think you've really gone bananas. Or you really are pulling people's legs.

These former generals are all respected men who have experienced battle (Vietnam, the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq) and been decorated for their efforts and achievements.

Now they're private citizens, and they have a right to speak out. No one is saying that the government needs to change course.

In fact, if the president did change course now or fire Rumsfeld, he would be admitting that he and Rumsfeld made mistakes. So the administration is in an embarrassing bind. And that's the situation you probably don't like, but "that's Hollywood."

And this administration never admits mistakes. The administration is just going to have to suffer through the lousy publicity that the generals are causing. And it can't put a lid on these guys because these guys have all been through a lot tougher situations than a confused president and a misguided SoD.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston

Post Number: 1847
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I don't care what he said..."

That's right, Art, no need to listen to dissenting opinions when you have FOX News. So f'n typical. Head in the sand. Try reading an excerpt and comment on the content, then perhaps somebody might take you seriously. As of now, you're a punchline. It's willfully ignorant people like you that's dragging this country to its knees.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4994
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

""Meanwhile, the real joke here is there are over 8,000 Generals and Admirals on active duty, and over 80,000 of them retired."

OK!, OK!, OK!, you know you're getting to be a real pain in my butt Innisowen...



OK, will you buy over 8,000 officers on active duty, and over 80,000 of them retired? Listen pal, give me a break. If these Generals can beef up their story, why can't I?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston

Post Number: 1849
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Art: You're just making stuff up, and lying, just like the president.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 4995
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

...damn, this is fun playing with you guys, but believe it or not I have a few others things to do today.... So, hang in a little, make up your arguments, and wait for me, because I'll be back to kick your butts!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen

Post Number: 1978
Registered: 3-2004
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:54 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I will buy 8,000 officers (2LTs, 1LTs, captains, majors, light colonels, chicken colonels, generals, and warrant officers). That works fine in my Table of Organization.

80,000 retired generals? No. Not even all the way back to the revolutionary war.

80,000 retired officers? I will buy that. However, many of them are already dead, and I don't believe their opinion has been solicited.

I think you're a great guy, AJC, and I mean that fully. Have a good day. But no more talk about 8,000 generals. You're beginning to sound like Rumsfeld on that one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso

Post Number: 192
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 1:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold summed it up best when he said "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special provinces of those who have never had to execute these missions-OR BURY THE RESULTS." Arrogance combined with ignorance. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc--Chickenhawks one and all.

Rumsfeld wanted to use Iraq as a proving ground for his theory of a streamlined, small military. We'll be in and out fast he said; he alone knew how many troops were needed. Well, he was flat out wrong. He was also the last guy to admit there was an insurgency in Iraq. Bush won't get rid of him because that would be admitting Iraq was a mistake, so Rummy and his ineffective leadership remain.

What ever happened to the old Republican virtues of personal responsibility and accountability? I guess they apply to everyone else.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger

Post Number: 1204
Registered: 9-2004
Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The 8th General:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/24/eighth-general

AJC-- Shinsecki(SP) got fired for speaking out, Court marshal is also an option. Nice of you to forget those minor FACTS.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1939
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 11:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You don't have to be a military genius to see that Iraq cannot be held with a mere 160,000 troops.

The New York police force is about 40,000, and this is for a relatively law-abiding population in a small physical area, with officers responsible for their own food and accomodation, etc. Iraq is a nation of 25 million people...

A little arithmetic and some common sense are all you need.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13841
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It would have worked if Iraqis were the throwing-flowers-at-our-feet kind of conquests we were hoping to find.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 5010
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 1:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Foj, what is this eighth general selling, a book? Listen, these guys’ and their opinions after they retire means little to nothing.

While on active duty, speaking out against our government or its leaders, and/or any form of insubordination is deserving of a court marshal; meanwhile, senior officers on active duty who speak up and voice their opinions about how they would prosecute the war is honorable, expected, and something very different then what they are doing now...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

curmudgeon
Citizen
Username: Curmudgeon

Post Number: 761
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 7:38 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

FWIW, it's court martial. not marshal.

Here's what Lawrence Wilkerson, a career US Army officer, Republican, and Secretary of State Colin Powell's Chief of Staff wrote in Sunday's Baltimore Sun
Is U.S. being transformed into a radical republic?
By Lawrence Wilkerson
Originally published April 23, 2006


We Americans came not from a revolution but from an evolution.

That is in large part why our so-called revolution produced success while most throughout history did not. We came as much from the Magna Carta as from our own doings, as much from British common law and parliamentary development as from the Declaration of Independence and Continental Congress.

Unlike the true revolution on the other side of the Atlantic that led to Napoleon's dictatorship and strife and conflict all across Europe, our evolution founded the greatest country the world has ever seen. That was true in every element of power and in the uniqueness that makes us great, our constant striving for "a more perfect union" and, as we do so, our open arms for the other peoples of the world "yearning to be free."

As Alexis de Tocqueville once said: "America is great because she is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

In January 2001, with the inauguration of George W. Bush as president, America set on a path to cease being good; America became a revolutionary nation, a radical republic. If our country continues on this path, it will cease to be great - as happened to all great powers before it, without exception.

From the Kyoto accords to the International Criminal Court, from torture and cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners to rendition of innocent civilians, from illegal domestic surveillance to lies about leaking, from energy ineptitude to denial of global warming, from cherry-picking intelligence to appointing a martinet and a tyrant to run the Defense Department, the Bush administration, in the name of fighting terrorism, has put America on the radical path to ruin.

Unprecedented interpretations of the Constitution that holds the president as commander in chief to be all-powerful and without checks and balances marks the hubris and unparalleled radicalism of this administration.

Moreover, fiscal profligacy of an order never seen before has brought America trade deficits that boggle the mind and a federal deficit that, when stripped of the gimmickry used to make it appear more tolerable, will leave every child and grandchild in this nation a debt that will weigh upon their generations like a ball and chain around every neck. Imagine owing $150,000 from the cradle. That is radical irresponsibility.

This administration has expanded government - creation of the Homeland Security Department alone puts it in the record books - and government intrusiveness. It has brought a new level of sleaze and corruption to Washington (difficult to do, to be sure). And it has done the impossible in war-waging: put in motion a conflict in Iraq that in terms of colossal incompetence, civilian and military, and unbridled arrogance portends to top the Vietnam era, a truly radical feat.

In Eugene Jarecki's documentary Why We Fight, Richard Perle, head theoretician for the neo-Jacobins who masquerade under the title "neoconservatives," claims that America was changed forever by 9/11. He tells us that those attacks are responsible for all this radicalism. The Jacobins were members of a radical political club during the French Revolution that instituted brutal repression in what became known as the "reign of terror."

Mr. Perle says that we may think we can go back, but we cannot. "We are not the same people we were before," he says emphatically, as if he were our king. If he's correct, then our country is as spent as was Rome, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain and a host of other great powers before each toppled from the mountain.

Mr. Perle is not correct.

First, it was Mr. Perle and people such as he who put us where we are today, not the terrorists of 9/11. A somnolent Congress assisted - a Congress that, as Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia said as the Senate failed to debate in the run-up to the Iraq war, was "ominously, ominously, dreadfully silent."

Second, people such as Mr. Perle do not represent the bulk of Americans, who are anything but radical. Instead, they represent the Robespierres and Napoleons of this world, the neo-Jacobins of today. Robespierre was a leader of the reign of terror.

We can turn back; moreover, we must if the world is to continue on a trajectory of more freedom and more prosperity for increasing numbers of people. Without American leadership - the good America - the world cannot progress.

If we are in some way the indispensable nation that a few Americans have said we are, then that is why. And it is no arrogance of power to say it; rather, it is to admit abiding reverence for the way the world works.

Such awesome responsibility generates not the swaggering ineptitude of which we have witnessed so much of late, but the abject humility that should flood us when we confront such unprecedented responsibility. I imagine the feeling to be something akin to what Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower felt moments before the invasion of Normandy began June 6, 1944.

Congress can awaken and discover that the Constitution is correct, that Congress is in fact a separate and equal branch of government. The American people will find a way to deal with the remainder of the radicals, whether at the ballot box, in the courts or in the Senate.

We can halt the precipitate slide in our standing around the world, convince the majority of the Islamic world that we can and must co-exist - and eventually prosper together - and at the same time confront, confound and defeat the small element in Islam's midst that lives to murder innocents, Christian, Jew and Muslim alike.

All we need do, in reality, is return to our roots. Never in our almost 800-year history since the Magna Carta have we been radicals.

Retired Army Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a visiting professor of government at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from 2002 to 2005. His e-mail is wilkerlb@aol.com
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 5014
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We Americans must never forget our roots. This nation was born out of a revolution and our evolution from those small beginnings must never ever be forgotten or taken for granted… A.J. Christensen

The previous weakness, inept, and unprofessional control of power employed by the Democrats in previous administrations has forced President Bush to take the present and necessary military actions against these evil and murderous people wherever we find them. Our country must continue to fight fire with fire, and show our resolve by the only thing these barbarians understand; the full force of our power and strength, and our will for all people to be free.

Diplomacy with barbarians is a cruel and ugly joke made by weak and foolish people. Like history has shown us in the past, these kind of murdering barbaric radicals will show you diplomacy if allowed the chance by doing everything they can to eradicate our culture. The bomb they get will not be just one bomb, in one city; it will be hundreds of bombs in every city until they wipe our kind off the face of the earth as promised!!!

Ask yourself what these people are fighting for that we as a nation are unwilling to give them. Is it Freedom? Is it Peace? Is it Human Rights? Why did they attack us before and on 9/11? Why do they continue to kill innocent civilians? Why don’t they sit down and negotiate a strong and lasting peace with all nations and all people of the world? Go ahead, make up some excuses...

Our revolution, not evolution founded the greatest country the world has ever seen. It’s our power and uniqueness that makes us great, our constant striving for "a more perfect union" and, as we do so, to continue to open our arms for others in the world "yearning to be free." Yes, "America is great because she is good.” However, if America ever ceases to be strong in the face of terror, America will cease to exist.

In January 2001, with the inauguration of George W. Bush as president, America set out on a path to be good and better than ever. On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by a revolutionary and radical people hell bent on taking away everything we hold dear. If our government failed to fight for our rights, it would not only cease to be great, it would cease to be. The Bush administration, in the name of fighting terrorism and obtaining an honorable peace has put America on the path to win. If we back away again from this war in favor of diplomacy or any other naive excuses used by the left, we might as well put our heads between our legs and kiss our goodbye...

We can’t turn back; moreover, we must continue on a trajectory for unbridled freedom and more prosperity for increasing numbers of people throughout the world. Without American leadership - "the strong America" - the world cannot progress.

Hopefully the American people will come to realize that we are not the radicals, and whether at the ballot box, in the courts or in the Senate we will maintain the course for freedom through strength and courage to stand for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people everywhere yearning to be free.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13850
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 12:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ajc wrote: Ask yourself what these people are fighting for that we as a nation are unwilling to give them. Is it Freedom? Is it Peace? Is it Human Rights? Why did they attack us before and on 9/11?

Which people are we fighting? I believe it's Iraqi people. Which people attacked us before and on 9/11? It wasn't Iraqis. Somehow, Bush is off the hook for misleading you and many others into thinking that Iraq planned 9/11, but you're not off the hook for holding that belief.

Define what you mean by "these people." I fear it's a nebulous concept such as "the bad people" but maybe it's something else.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

curmudgeon
Citizen
Username: Curmudgeon

Post Number: 763
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 1:32 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The previous weakness, inept, and unprofessional control of power employed by the Democrats in previous administrations..."

Ahh - you must mean the deal cut with Ayatollah Khomeini? You know - the one where they agreed that no American hostages would be released until after the American election and inauguration. No, wait - that was Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush. You meant, perhaps, the training, funding, and empowerment of Osama bin-Laden? Umm - wait - dang, that was Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush too. Maybe you were thinking about the financial, military, and diplomatic support provided for Saddam Hussein? Shoot! it was those great Americans Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush yet again. Maybe the collapse of the Oslo peace protocols and the onset of the second Intifada? Oops, sorry I mentioned it - that was George W Bush.

Or maybe you meant the Camp David peace accords in the Middle East? Umm, nooo - that was Jimmy Carter. Maybe the Oslo peace agreements? Damn it, that was Bill Clinton! Or maybe it was the disarmament of the IRA and the subsequent peace deal in Northern Ireland? Rats - Clinton again! Or perhaps it was the relatively quick, relatively casualty-free (compared to Iraq) cooling off of the Balkan conflicts? Oh no - Bill Clinton yet again.

Damn those Dems - don't they know they exist only to be demonized by AJC?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1940
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

A fool will always find a greater fool to admire him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc

Post Number: 5016
Registered: 9-2001


Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 6:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

...and who but another fool is qualified to judge?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1941
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Vox populi vox dei.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider

Post Number: 13891
Registered: 1-2003


Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 10:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I really enjoyed the commentary in the New Yorker on this topic. I hope you do, too.

The Decider indeed!

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060501ta_talk_hertzberg

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Credits Administration