NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/03/news/rumsfeld.php

2nd U.S. general tells Rumsfeld to quit
By Michael Janofsky The New York Times

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2006
WASHINGTON For the second time in two weeks, a former general has called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over what both generals described as serious mistakes made in the war in Iraq.

In remarks Sunday on NBC, General Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps, a former commander of the Central Command who retired in 2000, said that Rumsfeld, among others, should be held accountable for tactical mistakes in Iraq.

Asked who should resign, Zinni said, "Secretary of defense, to begin with," adding that resignations should also come from others responsible for planning the war effort and military officials who sat by without pointing out potential problems.

On March 19, similar sentiments were expressed by Paul Eaton, a retired army major general in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004. In an opinion article in The New York Times, Eaton criticized Rumsfeld's handling of the war, adding, "President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once."

Several days later, Bush dismissed calls for Rumsfeld to step down, saying he was satisfied with his performance.

Zinni headed the Central Command from 1997 to 2000. In his television appearance, he was especially critical of the lack of "credible planning" for Iraq and "not adhering to the advice that was being given to us by others."

Referring to difficult choices made in wartime by other presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, Zinni said: "You have to make tough choices. Integrity and getting on with the mission and doing it right are more important than loyalty. Both are great traits, but integrity, honesty and performance and competence have to outweigh, in this business, loyalty."

Here's the Eaton article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php

Let's count how many US generals are criticising the prosecution of the Iraq war: Zinni, Eaton, Shinseki, and Van Riper for starters. Who else? (Murtha's vocal and a career USMC reservist, but he's not a general. But he does deserve a mention.)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/03/news/rumsfeld.php



Here's the Eaton article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php

Let's count how many US generals are criticising the prosecution of the Iraq war: Zinni, Eaton, Shinseki, and Van Riper for starters. Who else? (Murtha's vocal and a career USMC reservist, but he's not a general. But he does deserve a mention.)

Zini is a class A idiot and was misrepresented by the NYTs. Not to mention retired. Are the others retired too? If so then they can stuff it.

Come now Corneliu, you can't possibly be in Rumsfeilds corner on this one ?

Come now Corneliu, you can't possibly be in Rumsfeilds corner on this one ?

Are these generals retired? BTW: Zinni has no weight because of what he did during the Somali fiasco.

I dont know if these Generals are currently in the states employ but it's only a matter of time until the ones who are begin to join them. The way in which senior politicians have handled the Iraq war has been... questionable at best. They're not even pretending it went or is going well and the generals currently handling the situation on the ground are not going to want to take the blame for it.

Ill wait for confirmation if they are current or not. I know that Zinni isn't and a good thing too.

criticism of the war effort started with active generals before the war even started. This guy's a complete idiot and Bush is the stupidest president in history. Not accepting this guy's resignation is just another example of what a complete bufoon our president is. I'm so glad I get to tell my children I did not vote for him/

Zini is a class A idiot and was misrepresented by the NYTs. Not to mention retired. Are the others retired too? If so then they can stuff it.

Yep. They're all retired. That gives them the freedom to actually speak the truth rather than follow the word from on high like those still serving.

As for Zinni, read up on his criticisms of the handling of the war:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208

Yep. They're all retired. That gives them the freedom to actually speak the truth rather than follow the word from on high like those still serving.

I know his criticisms and I really do not care if he criticises or not.

And if they are all retired then their arguments do not hold weight with me then. I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.

I know his criticisms and I really do not care if he criticises or not.

And if they are all retired then their arguments do not hold weight with me then. I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.

What exactly is it about being retired that makes their arguments any less valid, Corneliu? The fact that they're not under threat of being dismissed or moved to an obscure command surely means they can speak the truth.

What exactly is it about being retired that makes their arguments any less valid, Corneliu? The fact that they're not under threat of being dismissed or moved to an obscure command surely means they can speak the truth.

Sorry. I just do not like retired Generals who do not know what is going on inside the Defense Department.

criticism of the war effort started with active generals before the war even started. This guy's a complete idiot and Bush is the stupidest president in history. Not accepting this guy's resignation is just another example of what a complete bufoon our president is. I'm so glad I get to tell my children I did not vote for him/

Eaton was in Iraq training Iraqi forces. Shinseki was also critical while serving. In fact, his criticisms lead to his forced retirement. (And that's a big reason why the serving generals aren't being as critical as they should be.)

I know his criticisms and I really do not care if he criticises or not.

OK. What are they?

And if they are all retired then their arguments do not hold weight with me then. I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.

Why? If the civilian leadership pushes out generals who disagree with their policies, a la Shinseki, why would any active general be willing to speak his mind?

Ill wait for confirmation if they are current or not. I know that Zinni isn't and a good thing too.
They can't be current and make those kinds of statements--it's against the rules for active military to do that kind of stuff. But the fact that they're retired ought not make a difference.

A lot of these generals, maybe all of them, are a little PO'd that we didn't fight the last war. General Tommy Franks took a force that was smaller than the force that fought Desert Storm and whipped the Iraqis. He made the right decisions and the DoD backed him up. When I see him call for Rummy's resignation, then I'll see some merit in it.

They can't be current and make those kinds of statements--it's against the rules for active military to do that kind of stuff. But the fact that they're retired ought not make a difference.

I know what the rules are. My father is actually in the military.

I know what the rules are. My father is actually in the military.

So if you understand that active generals can't criticise Rummy, and you won't accept retired general's criticisms... nobody can legitimately criticise Rummy?

Zini is a class A idiot and was misrepresented by the NYTs. Not to mention retired. Are the others retired too? If so then they can stuff it.
Cause of course they loose all their experience and knoledge as soon as they retire

So if you understand that active generals can't criticise Rummy, and you won't accept retired general's criticisms... nobody can legitimately criticise Rummy?

Question for you! how do you know that they aren't criticising Secretary Rumsfield behind his back?

Question for you! how do you know that they aren't criticising Secretary Rumsfield behind his back?
His statement still stands

Your supposition would be an example of an ILLIGITIMATE criticizing of rummy

So, Corn, do you actually think this war has been fought competently?

Cause of course they loose all their experience and knoledge as soon as they retire
They do one of those flashy thing like in Men In Black. ;)

Question for you! how do you know that they aren't criticising Secretary Rumsfield behind his back?
I am absolutely positive that active military from the Pentagon to the mess cooks call him the stupidist ass they could ever serve under, but what does that have to do with the core question?

Question for you! how do you know that they aren't criticising Secretary Rumsfield behind his back?
The rules say you can't make public statements like that. But of course, you knew that because your dad's in the military, and that kind of knowledge just makes it into your brain via osmosis.

They do one of those flashy thing like in Men In Black. ;)
Makes so much sense now :)

criticism of the war effort started with active generals before the war even started. This guy's a complete idiot and Bush is the stupidest president in history. Not accepting this guy's resignation is just another example of what a complete bufoon our president is. I'm so glad I get to tell my children I did not vote for him/
Well, we had a "choice" of one idiot or the other idiot. ( shrug )

Well, we had a "choice" of one idiot or the other idiot. ( shrug )
God, how I wish we'd chosen the other one. I can't imagine a worse president and, to stick to the point in this thread, a worse secretary of defense. It'd be really hard to top this bunch in the incompetence department.

I know his criticisms and I really do not care if he criticises or not.

And if they are all retired then their arguments do not hold weight with me then. I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.

Oh, come on. That's a bullshit answer designed to dodge the actual points. These people haven't forgotten what they did in their job since the retired. That's nonsense. Besides which, you've set up an impossible situation. No soldier can legally criticise a politician, and no retired soldier's opinion matters. That's a clever means to avoid allowing criticism, but has no standing in reality (and makes you look like a complete Bushevik).

Oh, come on. That's a bullshit answer designed to dodge the actual points. These people haven't forgotten what they did in their job since the retired. That's nonsense. Besides which, you've set up an impossible situation. No soldier can legally criticise a politician, and no retired soldier's opinion matters. That's a clever means to avoid allowing criticism, but has no standing in reality (and makes you look like a complete Bushevik).
Yeah we seemed to have pointed that out

I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.

Just out of curiousity, what makes you think they aren't current? Because they are retired, does that mean no one from their former commands ever talks to them? That they no longer have friends inside the Pentagon who keep them apprised of the current situation?

Personally, I'd find that to be extremely unlikely.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/03/news/rumsfeld.php



Here's the Eaton article: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/19/opinion/edeaton.php

Let's count how many US generals are criticising the prosecution of the Iraq war: Zinni, Eaton, Shinseki, and Van Riper for starters. Who else? (Murtha's vocal and a career USMC reservist, but he's not a general. But he does deserve a mention.)
Shall we discuss how tactical mistakes, even major ones, are part of every single major conflict ever? Tactical mistakes are inevitable, the important part is to adapt to them. Now if there were major strategic errors the gen. might have a point.

Shall we discuss how tactical mistakes, even major ones, are part of every single major conflict ever? Tactical mistakes are inevitable, the important part is to adapt to them. Now if there were major strategic errors the gen. might have a point.
Exactly. Strategic mistakes are a different thing. Thanks for pointing that out because it is important to remeber the difference. A strategic mistake is like going in without enough men to properly occupy a country you just invaded or, say, allowing the country to be looted while your invading army just stands there and watches as they guard oil infrastructure, or not properly securing explosive and ammunition depots of the country you just invaded so a fledgling insurgency could just walk in a grab them and use them against you or not preparing for an insurgency at all or not properly securing the borders of the country you just invaded or taking over territory from an insurgency and then not properly securing the territory so that it falls right back into their hands when you leave or not taking the time to train troops in the cultural norms of the people you are going to occupy so that a growing resentment sets in or not setting up a proper Iraqi police and security force training program so that it is easily infiltrated by insurgents.

If those kinds of mistakes were made then these generals might have a point. But tactical mistakes are going to happen and you can't blame Rumsfeld. :)

So, Corn, do you actually think this war has been fought competently?

Some parts yes. Other parts no.

I wrote that bastard Rumsfeld a letter back in November that he should resign. He didn't even reply with one of those, "Thank you for submitting a letter" letters.

From 2003:

"Martin Hoffmann, a former Secretary of the Army and a key adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is known in Washington as the man who urged Rumsfeld, an old friend from Princeton, to hire executives from Enron and other corporations to lead the armed services. Recently, he and Michael Bleyzer, a former Exxon executive who runs a private equity firm that invests heavily in Bleyzer's native Ukraine, have been briefing senior US officials, including Rumsfeld himself, on their ideas for the rapid privatization of Iraq's state-run industries."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030623/shorrock

You should probably read the entire article to get the full gist.

Rumsfeld shouldn't have even been given this job...

Exactly. Strategic mistakes are a different thing. Thanks for pointing that out because it is important to remeber the difference. A strategic mistake is like going in without enough men to properly occupy a country you just invaded or, say, allowing the country to be looted while your invading army just stands there and watches as they guard oil infrastructure, or not properly securing explosive and ammunition depots of the country you just invaded so a fledgling insurgency could just walk in a grab them and use them against you or not preparing for an insurgency at all or not properly securing the borders of the country you just invaded or taking over territory from an insurgency and then not properly securing the territory so that it falls right back into their hands when you leave or not taking the time to train troops in the cultural norms of the people you are going to occupy so that a growing resentment sets in or not setting up a proper Iraqi police and security force training program so that it is easily infiltrated by insurgents.

If those kinds of mistakes were made then these generals might have a point. But tactical mistakes are going to happen and you can't blame Rumsfeld. :)Ah, sweetness. :D

From 2003:

"Martin Hoffmann, a former Secretary of the Army and a key adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is known in Washington as the man who urged Rumsfeld, an old friend from Princeton, to hire executives from Enron and other corporations to lead the armed services. Recently, he and Michael Bleyzer, a former Exxon executive who runs a private equity firm that invests heavily in Bleyzer's native Ukraine, have been briefing senior US officials, including Rumsfeld himself, on their ideas for the rapid privatization of Iraq's state-run industries."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030623/shorrock

You should probably read the entire article to get the full gist.

Rumsfeld shouldn't have even been given this job...
And THIS would DEFINITELY be another keeper. *bows*

I know his criticisms and I really do not care if he criticises or not.

And if they are all retired then their arguments do not hold weight with me then. I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.

And what if active generals publicly criticized Rumsfeld? What would you say then? Not that I don't already know your answer, but I'd like to hear it straight from the horse's ass.

Not that I doubt his credibility or his opinion, but Zinni has opposed everything to do with this war from the start, so this isn't exactly news.

EDIT: It should be noted that the last time he made declarations like this he had a book coming out, and now, lo and behold, he has another book coming out.

A lot of these generals, maybe all of them, are a little PO'd that we didn't fight the last war. General Tommy Franks took a force that was smaller than the force that fought Desert Storm and whipped the Iraqis. He made the right decisions and the DoD backed him up. When I see him call for Rummy's resignation, then I'll see some merit in it.

I have to agree with you on this one. I believe the same thing in this situation. Alot of hot air is expelled by ex-generals. I would only take current generals opinions at this moment.

Some parts yes. Other parts no.
okay, three more questions.

Overall, if you were to grade Rumsfeld's performance what would you say?

What did they do right?

What did they do wrong?

I have to agree with you on this one. I believe the same thing in this situation. Alot of hot air is expelled by ex-generals. I would only take current generals opinions at this moment.
Yeah... well, that's probably not going to happen.

Also from 2003:
"Gradually, Rumsfeld succeeded in replacing those officers in senior Joint Staff positions who challenged his view. “All the Joint Staff people now are handpicked, and churn out products to make the Secretary of Defense happy,” the planner said. “They don’t make military judgments—they just respond to his snowflakes.”"
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030407fa_fact1

See? It was clear in the beginning.

Ooooh... that article just gets better:

"In the months leading up to the war, a split developed inside the military, with the planners and their immediate superiors warning that the war plan was dangerously thin on troops and matériel, and the top generals—including General Tommy Franks, the head of the U.S. Central Command, and Air Force General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—supporting Rumsfeld. After Turkey’s parliament astonished the war planners in early March by denying the United States permission to land the 4th Infantry Division in Turkey, Franks initially argued that the war ought to be delayed until the troops could be brought in by another route, a former intelligence official said. “Rummy overruled him.”

Many of the present and former officials I spoke to were critical of Franks for his perceived failure to stand up to his civilian superiors. A former senator told me that Franks was widely seen as a commander who “will do what he’s told.” A former intelligence official asked, “Why didn’t he go to the President?” A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, “When you go in to talk to him, you’ve got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and walk out. Otherwise, he’ll walk over you.”

I have to agree with you on this one. I believe the same thing in this situation. Alot of hot air is expelled by ex-generals. I would only take current generals opinions at this moment.

Like you'd expect an Enron exec to have a valid opinion regarding 'mistakes' made by his company huh?

You'd be surprised at what people can say once they don't have the threat of immediate dismissal for criticisms hanging over their heads.

I know his criticisms and I really do not care if he criticises or not.

And if they are all retired then their arguments do not hold weight with me then. I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.


Interesting.

So military people cease to have relevant opinions upon their retirement?






Will you tell Eutrusca? Or shall I?

Shall we discuss how tactical mistakes, even major ones, are part of every single major conflict ever? Tactical mistakes are inevitable, the important part is to adapt to them. Now if there were major strategic errors the gen. might have a point.

Exactly. Strategic mistakes are a different thing. Thanks for pointing that out because it is important to remeber the difference. A strategic mistake is like going in without enough men to properly occupy a country you just invaded or, say, allowing the country to be looted while your invading army just stands there and watches as they guard oil infrastructure, or not properly securing explosive and ammunition depots of the country you just invaded so a fledgling insurgency could just walk in a grab them and use them against you or not preparing for an insurgency at all or not properly securing the borders of the country you just invaded or taking over territory from an insurgency and then not properly securing the territory so that it falls right back into their hands when you leave or not taking the time to train troops in the cultural norms of the people you are going to occupy so that a growing resentment sets in or not setting up a proper Iraqi police and security force training program so that it is easily infiltrated by insurgents.

If those kinds of mistakes were made then these generals might have a point. But tactical mistakes are going to happen and you can't blame Rumsfeld. :)

Read through the remarks made by Zinni that I linked above. (Here's the link again. (http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208)) That's exactly what he's talikng about...

Myrmidonisia and Marrakech II, the problems with sitting generals who criticise the SoD (or who might call for his resignation) have been pointed out - it's against policy, and those that do get forced into retirement or simply ignored.

Interesting.

So military people cease to have relevant opinions upon their retirement?






Will you tell Eutrusca? Or shall I?

I will answer.... No I think that he meant that there opinions do not matter as much as if they were in a position of leadership. It has been 10 years since I have been in. I can tell you that my opinion is based on my experiences from when I was in. Things have changed drastically since even I served. My opinion could be based on things that either have been corrected or simply do not exist in todays army. I believe that is the point he was trying to make with that statement.

As much as I think that Rumsfeld lives sheltered in a very special bubble of ideology to say the things that come out of his mouth, I don’t hold him completely responsible for all the White House sponsored stupidity in Iraq. I don’t think that he’s smart enough to have made this many mistakes on his own. As it is Rumsfeld is one embarrassing fiasco away from having an airport named after him and creating a medal in his name.

I blame a lot of it on guys, especially Wolfowitz who presented the same plan to Bush Sr. at the end of the First Gulf War (Operation Cobra II). Papa Bush couldn’t be talked into it and neither could the US military brass. The same hawks that surrounded dad when he went after Saddam were there in Junior’s White House. Cheney literally took Wolfowitz’s plan for invading Iraq out of a drawer and dusted it off. He did some editing to make it sound shiny and new, and handed it to Bush Junior like a clay tablet.

Tommy Franks commanding in Iraq was a little like Sheridan’s sacking of the Shenandoah Valley. Most Generals didn’t want to do it or had too many serious objections about the plan, to be considered the right leader for the job. In both cases it never should have been allowed to happen in the first place.

The problem was that the plan was untouchable dogma in the White House and couldn’t be changed, despite the voices from the Military and Intelligence community telling them the obvious flaws in it. Rumsfeld being made to resign would be a token gesture for the faults of practically the entire administration, but it would be a start.

The Bruce

I will answer.... No I think that he meant that there opinions do not matter as much as if they were in a position of leadership. It has been 10 years since I have been in. I can tell you that my opinion is based on my experiences from when I was in. Things have changed drastically since even I served. My opinion could be based on things that either have been corrected or simply do not exist in todays army. I believe that is the point he was trying to make with that statement.
But if the military had made POSITIVE corrections the outcome should be BETTER then when the generals served. unless the military is forgeting past experiences and going down hill

I will answer.... No I think that he meant that there opinions do not matter as much as if they were in a position of leadership. It has been 10 years since I have been in. I can tell you that my opinion is based on my experiences from when I was in. Things have changed drastically since even I served. My opinion could be based on things that either have been corrected or simply do not exist in todays army. I believe that is the point he was trying to make with that statement.


Except that General Eaton actually served in Iraq as recently as 2004, and so has intimate firsthand knowledge of how this war has been managed - you might have a point. And one might assume that he still chats with odd actively serving General from time to time as well.

But the notion that a serving general will strongly critique their Commander in Chief and his appointed SecDef and so that is the only critique you would accept is assinine. Hell, the last general to even try to take a stand against Rumsfeld on a matter of strategy (Shinseki) had his ass retired. And hey, how did the White House deal with criticism from Ambassador Wilson?

These men have careers, and these men understand their place in the chain of command. Of course they will not speak their minds until after retirement.



And, once again, if this really is his mindset then I want to see Corneliu apply his logic consistently and tell Eutrusca to shut his yap about anything related to how the military people feel about anything. After all, if ex-generals suddenly fail to understand strategy on retirement, so to must grunts suddenly fail to understand the position of active-service military members too once they leave the service.

And what if active generals publicly criticized Rumsfeld? What would you say then? Not that I don't already know your answer, but I'd like to hear it straight from the horse's ass.

Then I would say maybe he should resign.

Then I would say maybe he should resign.

Of course. Because how dare anyone criticize mein Fuhrer. You've set up a conveniently impossible situation. As long as these generals are being forced by their position to fellate the administration's military plan, you support their right to speak their mind and value their opinion. But as soon as they're in a position to actually say what they want to say, and have wanted to say, their opinions are suddenly invalid and you won't accept them. Nice blinders.

okay, three more questions.

Overall, if you were to grade Rumsfeld's performance what would you say?

C

What did they do right?

The invasion went pretty well.

What did they do wrong?

The way they handled the Insurgency

I will answer.... No I think that he meant that there opinions do not matter as much as if they were in a position of leadership. It has been 10 years since I have been in. I can tell you that my opinion is based on my experiences from when I was in. Things have changed drastically since even I served. My opinion could be based on things that either have been corrected or simply do not exist in todays army. I believe that is the point he was trying to make with that statement.

Thanks Marrakech.

Of course. Because how dare anyone criticize mein Fuhrer. You've set up a conveniently impossible situation. As long as these generals are being forced by their position to fellate the administration's military plan, you support their right to speak their mind and value their opinion. But as soon as they're in a position to actually say what they want to say, and have wanted to say, their opinions are suddenly invalid and you won't accept them. Nice blinders.

Sorry dude but I do not tolerate violations of the UCMJ. If they violated the UCMJ then they got what they deserved if they were forced out. Actually they got off easy if that is all they got.

This tends to cloud judgement as they have an ax to grind. If they do have an ax to grind, they'll take the opportunity to do it.

If I felt that Rumsfeld couldn't do the job, then I would be calling for his resignation.

Thanks Marrakech.
Well, if Marrakech really summed up your feelings on the matter, then perhaps you ought to respond to Silliopolous's response (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10708578&postcount=49) to him (especially since it references you by name.

A Pentagon official recalled that one senior general used to prepare his deputies for meetings with Rumsfeld by saying, “When you go in to talk to him, you’ve got to be prepared to lay your stars on the table and walk out. Otherwise, he’ll walk over you.”
Excellent advice. Unfortunately, few generals have that much moxie. :(

Sorry dude but I do not tolerate violations of the UCMJ. If they violated the UCMJ then they got what they deserved if they were forced out. Actually they got off easy if that is all they got.

This tends to cloud judgement as they have an ax to grind. If they do have an ax to grind, they'll take the opportunity to do it.

If I felt that Rumsfeld couldn't do the job, then I would be calling for his resignation.

It's cute; the situation you've set up. If they're active and they can't say anything bad, then their opinion matters. If they're active and they do say something bad, they've got an "ax to grind" and their opinion doesn't matter. If they're retired, no matter what they say, their opinion doesn't matter. Thankfully, since you're not an active general, your opinion of how Rumsfeld is doing doesn't matter.

It's cute; the situation you've set up. If they're active and they can't say anything bad, then their opinion matters. If they're active and they do say something bad, they've got an "ax to grind" and their opinion doesn't matter. If they're retired, no matter what they say, their opinion doesn't matter. Thankfully, since you're not an active general, your opinion of how Rumsfeld is doing doesn't matter.

Believe what you will. I have met generals and generals are way to political. We do not need political generals, we need fighting generals.

Believe what you will. I have met generals and generals are way to political. We do not need political generals, we need fighting generals.
What a simple little word you live in. :rolleyes:

Believe what you will. I have met generals and generals are way to political. We do not need political generals, we need fighting generals.
No, what we NEED are generals who are willing to lay their careers on the line for what they know to be professionalism. And by that I mean, generals who understand all the permutations and implications of a military organization in a democracy.

In short, I would expect them to do their frakking JOBS!

Believe what you will. I have met generals and generals are way to political. We do not need political generals, we need fighting generals.

I'll believe you would support Rumsfeld if you caught him raping your own mother. And I'll believe that you'll perform amazing feats of illogic in order to be able to dismiss any criticism of anyone you already support. And I'll believe you aren't capable of actually answering anything I've ever posted, so you respond with complete crap like "we do not need political generals, we need fighting generals."

What a simple little word you live in. :rolleyes:

I do not live in a simple world. We really need to tell the politicians to get the hell out of running a war. Let the military officers and enlisted personel run the wars. Congress should authorize and the military should fight it. Politicians (except the President and SecDef) need to stay out of it as they always screw it up.

You also have Generals that care more about politics than actually fighting a war. Screw that. If your going to fight a war, fight it.

Believe what you will. I have met generals and generals are way to political. We do not need political generals, we need fighting generals.


Oh.


So NO general has a valid opinion on how to fight a war. They are all "too political". And not what your country needs. None of these bastards no how to fight.


Not like a career politician like Rumsfeld right?..... no, he's not "political" at all!


So now - according to Corneliu - the military has no expert spokesman. Can't trust Generals on matters of strategy. Can't trust politicians.


Who can you trust?


Corneliu's Dad I'll bet.


Yeah - that's the ticket!

:headbang:

Of course. Because how dare anyone criticize mein Fuhrer.

Et tu, Sdaeriji?

No, what we NEED are generals who are willing to lay their careers on the line for what they know to be professionalism. And by that I mean, generals who understand all the permutations and implications of a military organization in a democracy.

In short, I would expect them to do their frakking JOBS!

I'll agree to this as well.

I'll believe you would support Rumsfeld if you caught him raping your own mother.

He'd be dead if he tried that.

And I'll believe that you'll perform amazing feats of illogic in order to be able to dismiss any criticism of anyone you already support. And I'll believe you aren't capable of actually answering anything I've ever posted, so you respond with complete crap like "we do not need political generals, we need fighting generals."

I have criticized Rumsfield before. I just do not do it publiclly.

I do not live in a simple world. We really need to tell the politicians to get the hell out of running a war. Let the military officers and enlisted personel run the wars. Congress should authorize and the military should fight it. Politicians (except the President and SecDef) need to stay out of it as they always screw it up.

You also have Generals that care more about politics than actually fighting a war. Screw that. If your going to fight a war, fight it.


Err. Isn't that pretty much what the good general said in his critique?


That the politicians were NOT running a good war? That they should have listened to the fighting generals like Shinseki and others?


Oh wait - his opinion on that doesn't matter. He's only a general.


Yours, however, is gospel and we should take it as such while dismissing that of an officer who SERVED IN IRAQ - despite the fact that they are almost identical.

Why?


Because one of you two is - according to you - an unreliable idiot.




On that point, I agree with you - although we probably disagree on the specifics.

I have criticized Rumsfield before. I just do not do it publiclly.

Doesn't matter. Your criticisms of Rumsfeld are not valid because you're not an active general. So you should really stop criticizing him. It's un-American.

Et tu, Sdaeriji?

Oui, moi aussi.

Oh.


So NO general has a valid opinion on how to fight a war. They are all "too political". And not what your country needs. None of these bastards no how to fight.

Never said that. Nice way to put words into my posts that aren't there. There are Generals who do fight and I trust those more than I do those who used politics to get their posts.


Not like a career politician like Rumsfeld right?..... no, he's not "political" at all!

I have my own view of politicians. I really do not like politicians to much.

*snip*

The rest of this post is just rediculous.

Doesn't matter. Your criticisms of Rumsfeld are not valid because you're not an active general. So you should really stop criticizing him. It's un-American.

:rolleyes:

Doesn't matter. Your criticisms of Rumsfeld are not valid because you're not an active general. So you should really stop criticizing him. It's un-American.


You win the thread.

Never said that. Nice way to put words into my posts that aren't there. There are Generals who do fight and I trust those more than I do those who used politics to get their posts.


Funny how no single general that actuall speaks seems to fit that criteria though right?



The rest of this post is just rediculous.

And yet suprisingly accurate when juxtaposed to your posts from which it is derived.

Funny how that works out isn't it?

:rolleyes:

Keep on proving my point, Cornhole.

Oh yes, and what happens to ACTIVE generals who speak out against policy?

Shinseki's early retirement is well known.

How about what happened to General Riggs (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11476)?

Makes an interesting read - especially what all the other generals cited int he article had to say about his treatment.


Speaking out as an active duty general - "Fighting" or not - is suicide under an administration who deals with opposition by crushing it.


Need the opinion of another General who served in Iraq?

Try General Conway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16309-2004Sep12?language=printer), or General Helmley (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6577)


But I bet those two are just "too political" too......

It really doesn't matter how many people say Rummy should resign. Bush has blinders on, and won't dismiss anyone who always agrees with his decisions, because his decisions are always right, you know... so therefore Rummy's always right. Anyone who says otherwise is categorically wrong.
This administration doesn't care about any voice that speaks up against them.

After reading the current debate... I can't believe some people spend as much time arguing with Corneliu as they do. You can point out hypocricy to a hypocrite, and they'll find some way around it, even if it only satisfies themselves. Fundamentalists on either side can't be made to see real reason.
As someone who is planning to work with the retired, I find it disgusting that anyone would so quickly dismiss their opinions simply because they're retired. Generals have seen enough to know what kind of stuff is going on, whether active or not. They can see the results of bad mistakes every day, if they want to. A person doesn't even have to even be an active military person to see that Bush Co has screwed the pooch on more than one occasion, and SOMEONE should be made to pay for it.

*snip*

Hypocricy happens on both sides of the aisle. Even here on Nationstates.

Hypocricy happens on both sides of the aisle. Even here on Nationstates.

That doesn't mean I have to like it from either side.

That doesn't mean I have to like it from either side.

Didn't say you had too :D

We really need to tell the politicians to get the hell out of running a war.

And that's the whole point of this thread. Rumsfield and his political friends insisted on a flawed plan against the advice of generals who were essentially canned for objecting.

Politicians (except the President and SecDef) need to stay out of it as they always screw it up.


What if it's the pesident and the SoD who've screwed it up? And what if they don't listen to those who object? And what if those who do object are slandered as being out of the loop political animals whose opinions don't matter?

Oh yes, and what happens to ACTIVE generals who speak out against policy?

Shinseki's early retirement is well known.

How about what happened to General Riggs (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11476)?

Makes an interesting read - especially what all the other generals cited int he article had to say about his treatment.


Speaking out as an active duty general - "Fighting" or not - is suicide under an administration who deals with opposition by crushing it.


Need the opinion of another General who served in Iraq?

Try General Conway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16309-2004Sep12?language=printer), or General Helmley (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=6577)


But I bet those two are just "too political" too......


Thanks. That's 3 more on the list. Let's have your objections Corneliu....

So, will anyone other than Corneliu defend rummy?

No, what we NEED are generals who are willing to lay their careers on the line for what they know to be professionalism. And by that I mean, generals who understand all the permutations and implications of a military organization in a democracy.

In short, I would expect them to do their frakking JOBS!

And amazingly Corneliu and I seem to be in agreement on that.

But what do you say to the accusations that these are the very same generals who are getting forced out? What of the politicians who, for all appearances, don't want to hear legit critiques of their plans and cherry pick the generals who agree with them?

I have criticized Rumsfield before. I just do not do it publiclly.


Have you got your own press office? How fucking conceited can you get?

Rather than argue about who should be able to say what when, Imma just lay this out.


The war in Iraq was ill concieved from the start. Rummy, Wolfy and Idiot (Bush) had no clue what they were doing at all. They had no plan for the occupation, they had no plans for the insurgency and they had no plans for the rebuilding of Iraq, at least no good ones. Since before the war started career generals and othet senior military personel warned them that there plans were flawed, chiefly that they did not have enough troops and that they underestimated the probability of an insurgency. Since the war senior military personel warned them about grave mistakes they were making during the occupation. Idiot, Rummy and Wolfy were all too arrogant to listen to people who have every reason to know better and invariably the critics have been able to say, "I told you so."

Now we're in this position and we can't leave. It is the hieght of absurdity to allow these people to continue to make decisions that hurt America and the rest of the Western world. They have shown time and time again that, not only do they make horrible decisions in the face of good advice that they more often than not reject, but they have also shown themselves impervious to learning lessons from their own stupid mistakes. They are among the most incompetent leaders the US has ever known and to continue to support them does not make you a "good American." It does not make you "patriotic." It makes you stupid.

Have you got your own press office? How fucking conceited can you get?

Since when do I need a press office?

And no need to swear. It makes you look unintellligent.

Believe what you will. I have met generals and generals are way to political. We do not need political generals, we need fighting generals.

Could you be talking about General Wesley Clark?

Another note I would add to this whole discussion. I honestly believe that Rumsfeld will not last this second term. I believe he may be close to retiring. I say retiring because there will be no other way for him to officially go out. I believe that the shakeup has already begun and it is a matter of time before we see a new head of the DoD.

No, what we NEED are generals who are willing to lay their careers on the line for what they know to be professionalism. And by that I mean, generals who understand all the permutations and implications of a military organization in a democracy.

In short, I would expect them to do their frakking JOBS!

You remember the last two guys who did that, Patton and Bradley. They hung the mafia war profiteers in the US army for operating a black market out of logistics; outted the Republican war profiteers at home; got a bit pissy about the stealing of Nazi gold to restart the Japanese economy; and got assassinated for their troubles.

Since when do I need a press office?


Well, you do seem to have suggested that you have a 'public audience' that you need to remain conscious of. Perhaps you should consider employing some media professionals to help manage your public persona? And I thought you were a mere college student?

I'm not aware that you're a public figure, i.e. someone whose words would be considered even slightly newsworthy or indeed of any interest to the public at large. Please correct me if I'm wrong in considering that you are not.

Consequently, assuming you don't criticise him inside your own head, you
are criticising Rumsfeld publicly by sharing your views with any other living person on the planet.



It makes you look unintellligent.

No, swearing is big and clever, especially as a response to pomposity and delusion.

Well, you do seem to have suggested that you have a 'public audience' that you need to remain conscious of. Perhaps you should consider employing some media professionals to help manage your public persona? And I thought you were a mere college student?

I am a college student. However because of my father's job, I have to be careful what I say in public lest someone overhears and reports it to the military authorities.

No, swearing is big and clever, especially as a response to pomposity and delusion.

Sorry but swearing shows a lack of vocabulary as well as intellect.

And another general "regrets his decision" to support the war.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/10/news/general.php

Generals begin calling for Rumsfield's resignation

What took them so long? Even Rumsfeld began calling for his own resignation before they did.

And another general "regrets his decision" to support the war.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/10/news/general.php


What about Colin Powell Corny? Does he count?


http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-powell09.html

What about Colin Powell Corny? Does he count?


http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-powell09.html

He's a politician :rolleyes:

He's a politician :rolleyes:

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Former Secretary of State, has no declared ambitions to run for public office, much less the Presidency.

Yeah Corny, he's a politician all right.

And you're still a Bushevik fellator.

:rolleyes:

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Former Secretary of State, has no declared ambitions to run for public office, much less the Presidency.

Once he became Secretary of State, he became a politician.

Yeah Corny, he's a politician all right.

He is.

And you're still a Bushevik fellator.

:rolleyes:

Just continue to believe that. Unlike you, I know differently. You are forgiven my child.

Once he became Secretary of State, he became a politician.

He is.

Just continue to believe that. Unlike you, I know differently. You are forgiven my child.

So. We're back to "No one can criticize Rumsfeld (or Bush) because if they are in a position to do so, they can't be trusted." :rolleyes:

What does Bush's semen taste like?

So. We're back to "No one can criticize Rumsfeld (or Bush) because if they are in a position to do so, they can't be trusted." :rolleyes:

What does Bush's semen taste like?

Corny could ask UN abassadorship what it tastes like :D

And Corny, you've just been owned again. In fact, you've been owned by so many people so many times you ought to be called Communal Property or Communicable Disease.

So. We're back to "No one can criticize Rumsfeld (or Bush) because if they are in a position to do so, they can't be trusted." :rolleyes:

What does Bush's semen taste like?

Ask Unabassadorship. He should know the answer to that one.

As to criticizing Rumsfield. Go ahead. I do not care. Criticize Bush. I do not care.

As to criticizing Rumsfield. Go ahead. I do not care. Criticize Bush. I do not care.

Yes Corny, nothing says you don't care like trying to defend Il Duhce and Bumsfailed with your brilliant "If they can criticize they're not impartial" fallacy.

:rolleyes:

Yes Corny, nothing says you don't care like trying to defend Il Duhce and Bumsfailed with your brilliant "If they can criticize they're not impartial" fallacy.

:rolleyes:

He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

**doesn't believe in sin, so nails Corny between the eyes**

He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

Corny, you've been pitching stones from Day One with your "My Daddy is in the military so I'm a military expert" crap and trying to come up with every imaginable excuse for Shrub.

This goes beyond getting owned. Are you trying to give free samples to everyone who comes to NS General?

Take the personal attacks elsewhere guys.

So. We're back to "No one can criticize Rumsfeld (or Bush) because if they are in a position to do so, they can't be trusted." :rolleyes:

What does Bush's semen taste like?
I don't know, but I heard that it's green. Like this smiley:


:gundge:

Take the personal attacks elsewhere guys.
Oh, sure, and take all the fun out of this thread?

**doesn't believe in sin, so nails Corny between the eyes**

You are forgiven Cat-Tribe.

Corny, you've been pitching stones from Day One with your "My Daddy is in the military so I'm a military expert" crap and trying to come up with every imaginable excuse for Shrub.

This goes beyond getting owned. Are you trying to give free samples to everyone who comes to NS General?

I have not tossed a single stone. I have tossed out opinions that are my opinions based on the actual facts in evidence.

I do not care if the President or Rumsfield are criticized but I do care when the President gets insulted.

Oh, sure, and take all the fun out of this thread?

Under the rules, personal attacks can be considered flaming and subject to punishment by the mods.

Under the rules, personal attacks can be considered flaming and subject to punishment by the mods.


Yeah, well, neither Rummy nor Dubya seems to be present in person, so...

OOPS! *full stop* Corny... I got to ask you: are YOU Dubya?

Yeah, well, neither Rummy nor Dubya seems to be present in person, so...

OOPS! *full stop* Corny... I got to ask you: are YOU Dubya?

If I was Dubya, I wouldn't be pussy footing in Iraq. If I was dubya, I wouldn't be pussy footing with Iran.

If I was Dubya, I wouldn't be pussy footing in Iraq. If I was dubya, I wouldn't be pussy footing with Iran.

Good answer, Mr Vice President.


SORRY.
( Honestly, it was just a joke - I know you actually read the papers )

He's a politician :rolleyes:

is that all you can say? What about when he was a general. Has your opinion of him changed so much that you will discount his word?

If I was Dubya, I wouldn't be pussy footing in Iraq. If I was dubya, I wouldn't be pussy footing with Iran.

Now is the nuclear winter of Corneliu's discontent.

Now is the nuclear winter of Corneliu's discontent.

I wouldn't use nukes at all. No need to use them unless someone wants to be stupid enough to use them on us first.

I wouldn't use nukes at all. No need to use them unless someone wants to be stupid enough to use them on us first.


GBU28?
( note to everyone else: they ain't actually nukes, but for the receiving end, it is a distinction without a difference )

I wouldn't be pussy footing in Iraq.



How exactly do you get less 'pussy-footing' than, amongst other things, torturing and killing civilians?



If I was dubya, I wouldn't be pussy footing with Iran.


I'd love for you to elaborate on this one?

How exactly do you get less 'pussy-footing' than, amongst other things, torturing and killing civilians?




I'd love for you to elaborate on this one?

Lemme tell you. It ain't what Corny would say, but here are a couple of options that are less lame than the current CluelessCon Way.

IRAQ: stop trying to look for offenders. Apply Mongol Option: any village that isn't totally submissive is simply removed from the planet altogether.

IRAN: Liberally sprinkle all known or suspected NBC sites with a good dose of Fuel Air Explosives but don't light the fuse! Pay a strictly social visit to the President of Iran. Play around with matches during the visit. He'll get the message.

I don't favour those options, but they are quite rational, and technically feasable.

IRAQ: stop trying to look for offenders. Apply Mongol Option: any village that isn't totally submissive is simply removed from the planet altogether.


Ridiculous. Submissive to whom exactly?



IRAN: Liberally sprinkle all known or suspected NBC sites with a good dose of Fuel Air Explosives but don't light the fuse! Pay a strictly social visit to the President of Iran. Play around with matches during the visit. He'll get the message.


Again, I'm assuming this is a joke. In any case, Iran has learnt from the experience of Iraq and its nuclear facilities will not be destroyed by air strikes.

Under the rules, personal attacks can be considered flaming and subject to punishment by the mods.

Sorry Corny, you're not a Mod so you're not in a position to refer to the rules.

Ridiculous. Submissive to whom exactly? 1]




Again, I'm assuming this is a joke. In any case, Iran has learnt from the experience of Iraq and its nuclear facilities will not be destroyed by air strikes.2]

1. To whoever happens to hold the gun to their head. Or the knife. Works like a dandy, see it on ogrish.com. Or just google for Nick Berg, in case you had forgotten.

2. Got any idea just how much pressure FAE can create per liter? I'm telling ya - no one on the receiving end will be able to tell the difference between enough FAE and a tactical nuke. Nor care, come to think about it.

1. To whoever happens to hold the gun to their head. Or the knife. Works like a dandy, see it on ogrish.com. Or just google for Nick Berg, in case you had forgotten.


So you want the US forces to completely level any settlement that contains people who aren't submissive to terrorist murderers? Are you sure you've thought this through?

Personally I love the fact that apparently no-one can criticise Bush or Rumsfeld, and that these Generals apparently have no worth to their statements. Because, as we all know, someones opinion becomes absolutely pointless once they leave the military.

It's a nice little Orwellian state really. You can't criticise whilst in the military as you'll be arrested and thrown in prison or thrown out, and once you're out you're opinion apparently doesn't mean a damn. Great system there...

Sorry Corny, you're not a Mod so you're not in a position to refer to the rules.

Actually, I can refer to the rules for a personal attack is flaming and is subject to punishment by the mods. I may not be a mod but that doesn't mean I cannot refer to the rules. That is like saying a LTC field commander doesn't have the right to refer to the Regs because he is not a JAG Lawyer.

Actually, I can refer to the rules for a personal attack is flaming and is subject to punishment by the mods. I may not be a mod but that doesn't mean I cannot refer to the rules. That is like saying a LTC field commander doesn't have the right to refer to the Regs because he is not a JAG Lawyer.

Or like saying that someone can't legitamately criticise Rummy because they aren't a general.

So you want the US forces to completely level any settlement that contains people who aren't submissive to terrorist murderers? Are you sure you've thought this through?

No. I want the Americans to get out, since I consider that option best for their own good. Regardless of American presence, the only stable outcome in Iraq is a shi'a state. Hanging around post-Saddam doesn't alter the power-equation.

And no: I'd want those settlements to be submissive to whoever happens to have the right military passport. That's kinda the idea behind employing force, you know?

However - YOU asked about less pussyfooting. You got your answer. Case closed.

Or like saying that someone can't legitamately criticise Rummy because they aren't a general.

I didn't say they couldn't criticize. They can criticize all they like. However, calling for the resignation of the Defense Secretary in a time of war does not bode well for the Morale of the troops.

I didn't say they couldn't criticize. They can criticize all they like. However, calling for the resignation of the Defense Secretary in a time of war does not bode well for the Morale of the troops.

As opposed to leaving the troops in the least capable hands that could be found in the Bush Team?

As opposed to leaving the troops in the least capable hands that could be found in the Bush Team?

Stop criticising dammit! Won't somebody think of the troops?

Stop criticising dammit! Won't somebody think of the troops?

I do. Which is why I'm very unhappy with both 'bring it on' and 'bring them home'. Since both of those options are based on really ill-informed assumptions.

I didn't say they couldn't criticize. They can criticize all they like. However, calling for the resignation of the Defense Secretary in a time of war does not bode well for the Morale of the troops.

As opposed to the delight they feel at having a corrupt incompetant running the show?

I do. Which is why I'm very unhappy with both 'bring it on' and 'bring them home'. Since both of those options are based on really ill-informed assumptions.

I can actually agree with this statement.

I do. Which is why I'm very unhappy with both 'bring it on' and 'bring them home'. Since both of those options are based on really ill-informed assumptions.

Indeed. Iraq is a goddamned Vietnam-esque quagmire that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. Leaving now would be disastrous and result most likely in a radical state, but staying on indefinately hardly seems plausible.

As opposed to the delight they feel at having a corrupt incompetant running the show?

Funny, for a second I thought you were talking about Bill Clinton.

Funny, for a second I thought you were talking about Bill Clinton.

Ahhh, I see. So, move to a completely different point rather than answer and possibly dare to criticise Bush and/or Rumsfeld?

Gotcha.

Indeed. Iraq is a goddamned Vietnam-esque quagmire that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. Leaving now would be disastrous and result most likely in a radical state, but staying on indefinately hardly seems plausible.

1) Iraq is not Vietnam. Not even close to being Vietnam.

2) Do not swear in the Lord's name.

IRAN: Liberally sprinkle all known or suspected NBC sites with a good dose of Fuel Air Explosives but don't light the fuse! Pay a strictly social visit to the President of Iran. Play around with matches during the visit. He'll get the message.

FAEs simply don't work that way. Your suggestion would simply result in laying down a aerosol cloud that would be disperesed by wind, evaporate, or settle to the ground (so it's no longr mixed with the air) long before it would be ignited. Also note that the latest designs are single stage, meaning there's no option of removing the trigger device (there's no "fuse").

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/fae.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
long PDF (http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs/adfhealth_apr03/ADFHealth_4_1_03-06.pdf)

Ahhh, I see. So, move to a completely different point rather than answer and possibly dare to criticise Bush and/or Rumsfeld?

Gotcha.

Sarcasm isn't your thing is it? Would it be better if I said Jimmy Carter?

Funny, for a second I thought you were talking about Bill Clinton.

Well done, you avoided the question by trying to attack the democrats. :rolleyes:

So, let me ask you again: what causes more damage to the morale of the soldiers: knowing that the war's being run by a corrupt incompetant or knowing that a few of your generals are brave enough to speak out against said incompetant?

1) Iraq is not Vietnam. Not even close to being Vietnam.

2) Do not swear in the Lord's name.

Goddamn

Goddamn

God-Jesus-Damn

I'll do whatever I want, thank you. And whilst Iraq isn't quite at the same level as Vietnam, there are similarities. An insurgency that is growing and won't go away, civil unrest and many citizens disliking an American occupation, rising casualties and an often incompetant leadership in both political and military circles.

Well done, you avoided the question by trying to attack the democrats. :rolleyes:

So, let me ask you again: what causes more damage to the morale of the soldiers: knowing that the war's being run by a corrupt incompetant or knowing that a few of your generals are brave enough to speak out against said incompetant?

Neither actually. What gets them down more is saying that they should be brought home before their job is completed in Iraq.

Goddamn

Goddamn

God-Jesus-Damn

I'll do whatever I want, thank you. And whilst Iraq isn't quite at the same level as Vietnam, there are similarities. An insurgency that is growing and won't go away, civil unrest and many citizens disliking an American occupation, rising casualties and an often incompetant leadership in both political and military circles.

There are no similiarities really my friend. The casualties aren't even on the same level as vietnam. In Vietnam, we lost roughly 5,000 a year. In Iraq, after three years, its around 600-700 a year. I see that is a vast difference.

There are no similiarities really my friend. The casualties aren't even on the same level as vietnam. In Vietnam, we lost roughly 5,000 a year. In Iraq, after three years, its around 600-700 a year. I see that is a vast difference.

In comparison, not really. Although smaller, there are still similarities. The rest of my points stand.

Indeed. Iraq is a goddamned Vietnam-esque quagmire that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. Leaving now would be disastrous and result most likely in a radical state, but staying on indefinately hardly seems plausible.

3 questions to be adressed.

1. What outcomes are we able to achieve in Iraq?
2. What are the costs associated with those outcomes?
3. Are we willing to bear those costs?

Neither actually. What gets them down more is saying that they should be brought home before their job is completed in Iraq.

Not true. Being led by incompetents is far more morale sapping. Most of the soldiers in Iraq (US and British) are not subjected to the same intense media as here in the west.

BTW what exactly was their job? I was told by my Prime Minister it was to find WMDs. So they stay till they find them do they?

FAEs simply don't work that way. Your suggestion would simply result in laying down a aerosol cloud that would be disperesed by wind, evaporate, or settle to the ground (so it's no longr mixed with the air) long before it would be ignited. Also note that the latest designs are single stage, meaning there's no option of removing the trigger device (there's no "fuse").

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/fae.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
long PDF (http://www.defence.gov.au/dpe/dhs/infocentre/publications/journals/NoIDs/adfhealth_apr03/ADFHealth_4_1_03-06.pdf)

Rearm and refuel as needed.

Last night at the bar a career Marine who served three tours in Iraq, told us he left the Marines with an honerable discharge rather than reinlist because Rumsfeld is a "threat to national security." He said that around the campfire moral is at an all-time low, not because of the press, not because of people criticizing Rumsfeld, but because the boots on the ground are dismayed at the ineptitude with which this war is being fought. He said that feeling is pervasive throught out the ranks. He said very few troops feel good about what they're doing there anymore, not because they don't believe in their mission, but because they feel the war is being fought so stupidly that they will not be able to accomplish it. He told us that he enlisted during the first Iraq war and fought there and that he wanted to retire in the military but that he simply couldn't stay because he felt that they are losing the battle and he didn't want to be a part of it because he doesn't feel like there's any hope as long as Rumsfeld is in charge.

Not true. Being led by incompetents is far more morale sapping. Most of the soldiers in Iraq (US and British) are not subjected to the same intense media as here in the west.

And it is that media that makes the Military's job tougher.

BTW what exactly was their job? I was told by my Prime Minister it was to find WMDs. So they stay till they find them do they?

I was told by Congress that it was to enforce UN Resolutions and to stop Saddam Hussein from committing more atrocities on his people.

3 questions to be adressed.

1. What outcomes are we able to achieve in Iraq?
2. What are the costs associated with those outcomes?
3. Are we willing to bear those costs?

Indeed. Corneliu, care to answer these?

Neither actually. What gets them down more is saying that they should be brought home before their job is completed in Iraq.

I must say you're excelling yourself today, never have questions been avoided with such agility..

Let's try again shall we? This question needs to be answered with a superlative, such as "x is worse than y" or "y is worse than x", got it? You can't answer by saying neither because you're being asked to compare the two. You can say that they are equally damaging if you want to.

What causes more damage to the morale of the soldiers: knowing that the war's being run by a corrupt incompetant or knowing that a few of their generals are brave enough to speak out against said incompetant?

Last night at the bar a career Marine who served three tours in Iraq, told us he left the Marines with an honerable discharge rather than reinlist because Rumsfeld is a "threat to national security." He said that around the campfire moral is at an all-time low, not because of the press, not because of people criticizing Rumsfeld, but because the boots on the ground are dismayed at the ineptitude with which this war is being fought. He said that feeling is pervasive throught out the ranks. He said very few troops feel good about what they're doing there anymore, not because they don't believe in their mission, but because they feel the war is being fought so stupidly that they will not be able to accomplish it. He told us that he enlisted during the first Iraq war and fought there and that he wanted to retire in the military but that he simply couldn't stay because he felt that they are losing the battle and he didn't want to be a part of it because he doesn't feel like there's any hope as long as Rumsfeld is in charge.

Talk about a minority. More people are actually re-enlisting to continue to do the job in Iraq.

And it is that media that makes the Military's job tougher.



I was told by Congress that it was to enforce UN Resolutions and to stop Saddam Hussein from committing more atrocities on his people.

Ah yes, the old Vietnam excuse. "It's the evil liberal media that's causing the war to fail!" Nothing to do with an increased insrgency that won't go away, and the fact that many Iraqi's actually dislike being occupied by a foreign power.

Enforce UN Resolutions? Rather hollow after you ignored the UN, huh? You've removed Saddam...and yet still atrocities continue. How odd...

SNIP.



I was told by Congress that it was to enforce UN Resolutions and to stop Saddam Hussein from committing more atrocities on his people.

In that case, we're in one of the following 2 situations.

A. Congress is lying.
B. The troops are now actually there to guard the courthouse where Saddam H. is being tried.

I was told by Congress that it was to enforce UN Resolutions and to stop Saddam Hussein from committing more atrocities on his people.

Correct if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but the main part of that UN resolution (an organisation your nation saw fit to ignore at the time) was about restricting the Iraqi regimes access to WMDs. As that regime no longer exists then surely the job is done? Neither your nationn nor mine has any mandate to be in Iraq, either from the UN, the international community in general or, most importantly of all, the Iraqi people.

Rearm and refuel as needed.

Again, that's simply not how they work. What your suggesting is the equivilant of running an unlit cigarette lighter until all the fuel has run out and dispersed, then flicking the flint and expecting it to light.

Talk about a minority. More people are actually re-enlisting to continue to do the job in Iraq.
This guy was hardcore, high and tight, built to the nines marine. You could see it in his face, you could here it in the way he talked. I don't know rank, but this guy had people he commanded. He said that this feeling is pervasive and is decidedly NOT the minority opinion. He said that, while people are reinlisting because they believe in the military life, no one he knows thinks the war is going well and everyone puts the blame squarely on the "top brass." He said he wished the media here would be much harder on Rumsfeld than it is because he feels that the war is winable but not with him at the helm.

Correct if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but the main part of that UN resolution (an organisation your nation saw fit to ignore at the time) was about restricting the Iraqi regimes access to WMDs. As that regime no longer exists then surely the job is done? Neither your nationn nor mine has any mandate to be in Iraq, either from the UN, the international community in general or, most importantly of all, the Iraqi people.

I love that. The US sticks two fingers up at the UN, trundles in and flattens the Iraqi army, captures the dictator, eventually puts him on trial and...continues to stay on, citing resolutions of the very organisation they ignored as reason to stay.

I love that. The US sticks two fingers up at the UN, trundles in and flattens the Iraqi army, captures the dictator, eventually puts him on trial and...continues to stay on, citing resolutions of the very organisation they ignored as reason to stay.

Great ain't it? Gives a whole new dimension to the word "ironic".

Again, that's simply not how they work. What your suggesting is the equivilant of running an unlit cigarette lighter until all the fuel has run out and dispersed, then flicking the flint and expecting it to light.


Beat the grass to startle the snake. The secret art of war ;)

In that case, we're in one of the following 2 situations.

A. Congress is lying.

which they didn't.

B. The troops are now actually there to guard the courthouse where Saddam H. is being tried.

I'm sure some are.

Correct if I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will) but the main part of that UN resolution (an organisation your nation saw fit to ignore at the time) was about restricting the Iraqi regimes access to WMDs.

There were some Resolutions about that but not all of them were about WMD.

As that regime no longer exists then surely the job is done?

Part I is done yes and that mission was accomplished as Bush stated.

Neither your nationn nor mine has any mandate to be in Iraq, either from the UN, the international community in general or, most importantly of all, the Iraqi people.

I could go on about how this is wrong but I won't because I know it would be pointless.

This guy was hardcore, high and tight, built to the nines marine. You could see it in his face, you could here it in the way he talked. I don't know rank, but this guy had people he commanded. He said that this feeling is pervasive and is decidedly NOT the minority opinion. He said that, while people are reinlisting because they believe in the military life, no one he knows thinks the war is going well and everyone puts the blame squarely on the "top brass." He said he wished the media here would be much harder on Rumsfeld than it is because he feels that the war is winable but not with him at the helm.

Hey good. The press should keep after the Brass. Then maybe the brass would actually do their jobs for once in the lives instead of playing politics.

which they didn't.



I'm sure some are.


In that case, the rest of 'em must be on some other mission not authorised by congress...

Hey good. The press should keep after the Brass. Then maybe the brass would actually do their jobs for once in the lives instead of playing politics.
You just echoed the exact complaint that you have been railing against in this whole thread.

Christ, answer the question. Just what is the job that the troops are doing and when will it be done? Please tell me, I'm dying to know...............

The Iraq situation is very similar to Vietnam in one respect; the present 'government' would be unable to function, or indeed survive, without substantial US military back-up.

A big difference is that when the US finally leaves and the Iraq government does collapse, instead of a swift conquest of the entire nation by the 'other side', we'll see a long, bloody power struggle between various groups, probably resulting in the ultimate destruction of the country itself.

In that case, the rest of 'em must be on some other mission not authorised by congress...

The mission was to liberate Iraq however, even during liberation, things get broken and must be rebuilt. This is what we are in the process of doing now. It is called reconstruction.

You just echoed the exact complaint that you have been railing against in this whole thread.

Brass equaling the Generals. I wasn't talking about the Administration :D

Christ, answer the question. Just what is the job that the troops are doing and when will it be done? Please tell me, I'm dying to know...............

The job now is to secure liberty in Iraq from those that want to destroy liberty.

The mission was to liberate Iraq however, even during liberation, things get broken and must be rebuilt. This is what we are in the process of doing now. It is called reconstruction.

That was NOT the stated mission of the coalition, EVER. I defy anyone to prove otherwise. At no time ever did any government of the coalition say that the military mission was liberation and reconstruction. The stated mission was self preservation by preventing Saddam's use of WMDs. That is a fact and you or anybody else cannot argue that fact. That mission has been achieved so WHY ARE THE TROOPS STILL THERE?

The job now is to secure liberty in Iraq from those that want to destroy liberty.

Well, that's a nice and vague aim, isn't it? More than enough reason to plonk down permanant bases and go against the wishes of the Iraqi government and many people. Because 'Liberty' is being threatened, and the US is of course the sanctimonious guard of 'Liberty', isn't it?

The job now is to secure liberty in Iraq from those that want to destroy liberty.

Thats not what the troops are doing though! All they are doing is propping up an inefficient and unpopular government.

Hey good. The press should keep after the Brass. Then maybe the brass would actually do their jobs for once in the lives instead of playing politics.


So:
a) the generals can't tell rummy he's wrong to his face while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted (a la Shinseki)
b) they can't say tell he's wrong in the press while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted
c) they can't say rummy's wrong at all once they retire, because they forget everything they knew, even though they were involved in the planning and/or were on the ground in Iraq
d) and the press should keep after them to run the war correctly when rummy's behind the bad decisions because he over ruled their advice

WTF? You sure about all that?

The mission was to liberate Iraq however, even during liberation, things get broken and must be rebuilt. This is what we are in the process of doing now. It is called reconstruction.


You know, I'd love to watch you say that face-to-face to the average Iraqi on the street.

You know, I'd love to watch you say that face-to-face to the average Iraqi on the street.

Get me a ticket and I'll tell the Kurds who are Iraqi.

You know, I'd love to watch you say that face-to-face to the average Iraqi on the street.

How dare you insinuate that the Iraqi wouldn't bend down and kiss his boots for being a Liberator!

Get me a ticket and I'll tell the Kurds who are Iraqi.

Believe me, pal, after reading some of this I'm tempted to do so. Only you can go to Basra instead.

Skinny, I believe I'm experiencing my first case of "Forum Frustation". :headbang:

Skinny, I believe I'm experiencing my first case of "Forum Frustation". :headbang:

Indeed. Corneliu, could you answer the number of criticial questions being asked, ans not avoid them?

Brass equaling the Generals. I wasn't talking about the Administration :D
The complaints on the ground, according to this marine, are directed against the secretary of defense. They say it is the ineptitude of Rumsfeld that is losing this war. According to this marine many in the armed forces are upset by the fact that a bunch of "draft dodgers," his term, not mine, who have never fought in a war or faced combat think they know how tofight one and they are making "extremely stupid," again, his term, not mine, decisions that are costing both Iraqi and US soldier's lives and are losing this war.

Zini is a class A idiot and was misrepresented by the NYTs. Not to mention retired. Are the others retired too? If so then they can stuff it.

??? Zinni was fired, he didnt retire willingly.

??? Zinni was fired, he didnt retire willingly.

Thank you for telling me something that I already know. I know why he was fired too.

Get me a ticket and I'll tell the Kurds who are Iraqi.


Just the Kurds?

Why not tell a shopkeeper from Fallujah? On no, wait a minute, there aren't any of those around since US forces slaughtered them all back in Xmas 04.

Thank you for telling me something that I already know. I know why he was fired too.

I hate to hound, but you're avoiding the important questions. Please answer them.

Answers please, still waiting........

Do not rush to answers for if you do, you'll only make yourself a fool.

Do not rush to answers for if you do, you'll only make yourself a fool.

Philisophical genius.

Do not rush to answers for if you do, you'll only make yourself a fool.

Smart arse remarks do not an answer maketh.

Smart arse remarks do not an answer maketh.

It wasn't a smart comment. It is a truth. He who rushes to find the answers one seeks will not find accurate answers to the questions one wants answers.

It wasn't a smart comment. It is a truth. He who rushes to find the answers one seeks will not find accurate answers to the questions one wants answers.

Patience is a word invented by stupid people who can't think quickly enough. When you actually have an answer to the questions being asked of you then post them. Till then, byebye....

I'm just about sick of all this spin and bullshit and dodging. The war's going badly, we're doing badly, nobody's doing anything about it. It's all a lie, the reason, the action, the purpose, everything. This is a worst-case scenario of when the most powerful country in the world is being run by idiots, and nobody stands up to them (not the UN, not congress, not the people).

Personally I'm ready to just fast-forward to the deciding moment to where we either try to take out the entire middle-east (which we might have to do, at this rate) and fail in doing so, therefore weakening ourselves and going into martial law because of an uprising from american insurgents, losing, and having an incredibly unstable -everything- (economy, trade, political system, hierarchy) as we try to reshuffle everything back to where it's supposed to be...

Or, where we're invaded by numerous other countries and taken over and many are arrested for being in violation of many UN resolutions and anti-terrorist acts, having the whole world shift hugely, possible chaos because everything has to be put into the right place while keeping everything stable...

Imagine being in a classroom 20 years from now, taking History 101, learning about how the whole fucking world stood up and tore down the corrupt and unforgivable american government, creating either an entirely new country altogether or simply dividing up the country evenly. Imagine California being part of Asia.

I just want it to be done and over with, already. God damn.

Patience is a word invented by stupid people who can't think quickly enough. When you actually have an answer to the questions being asked of you then post them. Till then, byebye....

Believe what you will. Patence was not a word that was invented by "stupid people." Define the phrase stupid people. Who decides who is a stupid person? We do not have that authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. Only the Lord upstairs has that ability to decide that.

Believe what you will. Patence was not a word that was invented by "stupid people." Define the phrase stupid people. Who decides who is a stupid person? We do not have that authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. Only the Lord upstairs has that ability to decide that.

And you don't have the authority to dodge questions. That is the nature of debate - question and answer. So provide me with some answers and we can continue. Till then we're kind of stuck arn't we?

Believe what you will. Patence was not a word that was invented by "stupid people." Define the phrase stupid people. Who decides who is a stupid person? We do not have that authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. Only the Lord upstairs has that ability to decide that.

I disagree. I have the ability to decide that you're incredibly stupid.

Just say "I DON'T KNOW". It's okay to not know. It's okay to change your mind. Just don't act like you're some kind of smart guy because you refuse to answer the basic questions, kay? Kay.

Believe what you will. Patence was not a word that was invented by "stupid people." Define the phrase stupid people. Who decides who is a stupid person? We do not have that authority to decide what is right and what is wrong. Only the Lord upstairs has that ability to decide that.

Feck off and answer their questions!

Feck off and answer their questions!

He won't because he can't. Simple as. Shame he's not man enough to admit something as simple as "I don't know".

I'm just about sick of all this spin and bullshit and dodging. The war's going badly, we're doing badly, nobody's doing anything about it. It's all a lie, the reason, the action, the purpose, everything. This is a worst-case scenario of when the most powerful country in the world is being run by idiots, and nobody stands up to them (not the UN, not congress, not the people).

Last time I checked the rule book, the War ended in April 2003. Last time I checked, no one stands up to the evil of this world except those who are willing to risk it all to combat it. You may think that the US is being runned by idiots but what you do not understand is that it is apparent that few nations on this Earth are still willing to combat those who are evil. The UN has failed to do this on many occassions. Congress gave the President the authority to confront Hussein. The people voted for Bush because they felt that Kerry was not the best suited to run the country.

You are right about the spin though. Everyone is guilty of it. The posters in this thread, including me, are guilty of bias and spin.

Personally I'm ready to just fast-forward to the deciding moment to where we either try to take out the entire middle-east (which we might have to do, at this rate) and fail in doing so, therefore weakening ourselves and going into martial law because of an uprising from american insurgents, losing, and having an incredibly unstable -everything- (economy, trade, political system, hierarchy) as we try to reshuffle everything back to where it's supposed to be...

I truly doubt that this pessimistic view will ever occur. I do not see this happening at all in fact. The people of this country do believe in the word of law.

Or, where we're invaded by numerous other countries and taken over and many are arrested for being in violation of many UN resolutions and anti-terrorist acts, having the whole world shift hugely, possible chaos because everything has to be put into the right place while keeping everything stable...

And who is going to authorize that? Who would want to try such a thing as the NATO nations are obligated under Article 5 of the NATO Charter to support the United States if the US is attacked by someone. Besides, an invasion of this country would literally be suicide.

Imagine being in a classroom 20 years from now, taking History 101, learning about how the whole fucking world stood up and tore down the corrupt and unforgivable american government, creating either an entirely new country altogether or simply dividing up the country evenly. Imagine California being part of Asia.

Oh brother.

I just want it to be done and over with, already. God damn.

What do you want to be done and over with?

I disagree. I have the ability to decide that you're incredibly stupid.

Just say "I DON'T KNOW". It's okay to not know. It's okay to change your mind. Just don't act like you're some kind of smart guy because you refuse to answer the basic questions, kay? Kay.

I do not have to answer questions that are poised to me. Nothing is written telling me that I have to answer these questions. I am not under an oath to answer all questions truthfully.

I seek my answers through various means. The answers will remain with me for the answers will be pointless in this thread which is full of hypocrits.

He won't because he can't. Simple as. Shame he's not man enough to admit something as simple as "I don't know".

As a servent of the Lord, I forgive you for your insolence.

Corn - It is not patriotic to mindlessly agree with everything the current president of America does.

It does not make you a better American to stand behind the administration while it blunders your country into oblivion.

This administration and it's unprecedented level of ineptitude is HURTING America. Instead of tax and spend liberals, what we have got is borrow from the Chinese and spend neocons. Instead of America first conservatives, what we have got is a an admin that is dangerously focused on foreign affairs rather than securing our borders and protecting the viability of the backbone of the American economy - our middle class. We've got a president that values party buddies over competence and experience and Rumslfeld is the perfect example of that. He has no wartime experience at all and he at best ignored and at worst fired people who are carer military during the planning and execution of this war.

If you read my posts I think you'll find I'm anything but a bleeding heart liberal, but even conservatives and military hawks are at the point where they are fed up with the stupidity of this administration. If you truly love yoru country then its time to stop these people from destroying it. If you're hardcore conservative, fine. At least back a person who doesn't just give lip service to core conservative principles while spending yoru children's inheritence. It's not just about this war, this administration is bad at everything that it does. Its time for the American people to stand up and hold them accountable for their ineptitude and blindly stupid arrogance. That's what being a patriot is about. It's not about backing Bush. It's about defending America from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. This administration is causing irreperable harm to our country and they need to be stopped.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As this thread and many others has proven, Corneliu is incapable of offering solid proof to back up any of assertions.

He'll play his "My Daddy is in the military so that makes me a military expert" card yet ignore the words of three, four and even five-star generals and hardcore Marines just because they're no longer in the active military- and willfully ignores that little part about active military being forbidden to speak out on their personal views of the current leadership.

His sole defense for the incompetence of the Bush Administration in general and Rumsfeld in specific is a circular logic which goes "Only active military can criticize Bush and Rumsfeld with any amount of credibility. It is against rules and regulations for active military to criticize Bush and Rumsfeld. Therefore any retired military who criticizes Bush and Rumsfeld has no credibility at all."

Instead of coming up with links to articles that back up his claims or refute others, he'll either reply with a blanket generalization with no factual backings, or more commonly he'll try to change the subject or avoid it altogether.

He'll use the United Nations as an excuse for the Iraq invasion, despite it being a well known fact that in the past he had a signature that blatantly expressed his contempt for the UN and its existence.

Corneliu has been owned by so many people on General over its history, my nickname for him is Communal Property. He's the biggest Bush Administration manslut on NS General, comparable to James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert.

In other words, don't hold your breath for him to make a rational and factually backed reply to your arguments folks.

This has been a public service announcement.

Corn - It is not patriotic to mindlessly agree with everything the current president of America does.

Darn skippy it isn't. I never said otherwise.

It does not make you a better American to stand behind the administration while it blunders your country into oblivion.

I happened to agree with the 2nd Gulf War but not for the reasons that the Bush Administration stated.

Corneliu is an interesting fellow. Flaming follows him everywhere. In his point of view the 70 people that are consistently saying that his views vary between wrong, immoral, unjust and atrocious, are the ones with problem. Each and every single one of them.

As a servent of the Lord, I forgive you for your insolence.

Not insolence just fact. Answer the questions and prove us wrong.

Corneliu is an interesting fellow. Flaming follows him everywhere. In his point of view the 70 people that are consistently saying that his views vary between wrong, immoral, unjust and atrocious, are the ones with problem. Each and every single one of them.

Immoral is a relative term. What is considered immoral? What is considered wrong? Wrong is also in the eye of the beholder for the most part. Unjust? What was unjust was leaving Saddam in power for 12 additional years. Unjust is what the UN did in Yugoslavia. So who decides what us just and unjust? Only He who is greater than I am can make that claim. For He is the one that I serve.

Not insolence just fact. Answer the questions and prove us wrong.

I do not have to answer questions that are poised to me. Nothing is written telling me that I have to answer these questions. I am not under an oath to answer all questions truthfully.

I seek my answers through various means. The answers will remain with me for the answers will be pointless in this thread which is full of hypocrits.

Darn skippy it isn't. I never said otherwise.



I happened to agree with the 2nd Gulf War but not for the reasons that the Bush Administration stated.
More than anyone on this board you pick and choose what to respond to and ignore what you can't. What about the rest of that post? If you agree with the first two statements, then are you saying that you think this administration is doing a good job of running our country? Do you think Rumsfeld is doing a good job of running the war?

Only He who is greater than I am can make that claim. For He is the one that I serve.
How do you get your marching orders on that? Does he leave a note on your doorstep every morning? Does he email you?

I do not have to answer questions that are poised to me. Nothing is written telling me that I have to answer these questions. I am not under an oath to answer all questions truthfully.

I seek my answers through various means. The answers will remain with me for the answers will be pointless in this thread which is full of hypocrits.

By not answering you are implying that you do not have the answers. If you want to prove me wrong then answer, otherwise I'm left with my own conclusion that are not man enough to admit when you are in the wrong. I cannot force you to answer of course, but for the purposes of this debate, without an answer we cannot continue.

More than anyone on this board you pick and choose what to respond to and ignore what you can't. What about the rest of that post?

I'll reply to it when I leave the library. Right now, I am hammering out a 7 page paper on Military and Civilian Life in Pennsylvania during the Revolutionary War.

If you agree with the first two statements, then are you saying that you think this administration is doing a good job of running our country? Do you think Rumsfeld is doing a good job of running the war?

There are somethings I disagree with about this administration that I wish would get fixed. As for Rumsfield, everyone does make mistakes. There was only one perfect person on this Earth and he died over 2000 years ago. As to being good at running the war, he's made mistakes, mistakes I don't like.

How do you get your marching orders on that? Does he leave a note on your doorstep every morning? Does he email you?

He answers me through whatever means He wants to answer me through. This includes dreams or using other people to reply to what He wants me to do.

To sum up this thread: Corneliu is dead, and we're here to watch his corpse decompose.

To sum up this thread: Corneliu is dead, and we're here to watch his corpse decompose.
Sounds about right.

To sum up this thread: Corneliu is dead, and we're here to watch his corpse decompose.

You are forgiven.

You are forgiven.

Thankyou. Your not till you answer the questions. :)

No, what we NEED are generals who are willing to lay their careers on the line for what they know to be professionalism. And by that I mean, generals who understand all the permutations and implications of a military organization in a democracy.

In short, I would expect them to do their frakking JOBS!
Interesting, concise and valid points there, Eut.
Shame that, according to Corneliu, any military person now retired can't have opinions worth considering.
So, we'll just have to forget anything you say. Sorry old man, but that's the way it goes.

If they (the generals) are all retired then their arguments do not hold weight with me then. I thought they were current. If they were, i would consider it. Retired? forget it.

Thankyou. Your not till you answer the questions. :)

The only forgiveness I seek is forgiveness through the Lord.

You are forgiven.

I forgive you for forgiving me.

It as occured to me that Corneliu embodies everything that is wrong with this administration. Blind loyalty in the face of overwhelming incompetence and an ideological rigidity that prevents accepting and taking responsibility for mistakes. He remians loyal to Bush teh same way Bush remains loyal to Rumsfeld and he has this "stay the course" mentality even when circumstance has made it clear that the course is leading over a cliff.

It as occured to me that Corneliu embodies everything that is wrong with this administration. Blind loyalty in the face of overwhelming incompetence and an ideological rigidity that prevents accepting and taking responsibility for mistakes. He remians loyal to Bush teh same way Bush remains loyal to Rumsfeld and he has this "stay the course" mentality even when circumstance has made it clear that the course is leading over a cliff.

I'm not loyal to any one person but loyal to God, country, and family. I am not loyal to political leaders of any party. I will vote for whom I feel can do the job and if that means voting democrat I will do that just like I will vote for a republican if I can feel he can do the job.

The only forgiveness I seek is forgiveness through the Lord.

The Lord doesn't like people who kill others remember? Pretty sure he wouldn't take too kindly to you encouraging others to do the same, so best hold back on that forgiveness you want eh?

The Lord doesn't like people who kill others remember? Pretty sure he wouldn't take too kindly to you encouraging others to do the same, so best hold back on that forgiveness you want eh?

I have never encouraged others to kill. However the life of a military person is to destroy his enemy. Lord Jesus was a peacemaker but he also challenged the Pharisees and the law makers of the day.

You shouldn't commit murder, you are right about that, but he says nothing about military conflict.

Last time I checked the rule book, the War ended in April 2003. Last time I checked, no one stands up to the evil of this world except those who are willing to risk it all to combat it. You may think that the US is being runned by idiots but what you do not understand is that it is apparent that few nations on this Earth are still willing to combat those who are evil. The UN has failed to do this on many occassions. Congress gave the President the authority to confront Hussein. The people voted for Bush because they felt that Kerry was not the best suited to run the country.

You are right about the spin though. Everyone is guilty of it. The posters in this thread, including me, are guilty of bias and spin.

Damn right there are few nations that stand up to evil, otherwise America would be burned ground by now. People voted for Bush because Kerry is a fool, and shouldn't have been running, rather than because Bush was any good. John Edwards with Kerry would have seen a victory, rather than the defeat which Kerry got.



And who is going to authorize that? Who would want to try such a thing as the NATO nations are obligated under Article 5 of the NATO Charter to support the United States if the US is attacked by someone. Besides, an invasion of this country would literally be suicide.

I think that many nations would gladly spit on that nation in the same way that you've spat on the decisions of the UN itself. Did someone say "Veto"?

An invasion might well be suicide, but merely starving the USA of money by sanctions would work perfectly.

I have never encouraged others to kill. However the life of a military person is to destroy his enemy. Lord Jesus was a peacemaker but he also challenged the Pharisees and the law makers of the day.

You shouldn't commit murder, you are right about that, but he says nothing about military conflict.

Look, I've been flaming you to answer the questions and your not going to are you, so just leave it ok? This is a debate about whether the US administration is fit to fight a war or not, not about your religious beliefs or your right to answer or not answer questions. If you have nothing to contribute to the debate then leave.

Damn right there are few nations that stand up to evil, otherwise America would be burned ground by now.

All I can do is :rolleyes:

People voted for Bush because Kerry is a fool, and shouldn't have been running, rather than because Bush was any good.

And here I thought it was the democrats running on an anybody but Bush ticket. Kerry was not the best candidate for President. You are right about that. Lieberman would've been a better choice for President.

John Edwards with Kerry would have seen a victory, rather than the defeat which Kerry got.

Actually, I rather doubt this. The Democrats had a mixed messege and when you have a mixed messege, you do not win elections.

I think that many nations would gladly spit on that nation in the same way that you've spat on the decisions of the UN itself. Did someone say "Veto"?

Nope, No one said veto in this thread. However, let me ask you this! If this nation was invaded without UN Authorization, would you stand up and yell it as an Illegal Invasion?

An invasion might well be suicide, but merely starving the USA of money by sanctions would work perfectly.

Unfortunately, you have a minor problem with this one. If our economy goes down, so does the world's.

Look, I've been flaming you to answer the questions and your not going to are you, so just leave it ok? This is a debate about whether the US administration is fit to fight a war or not, not about your religious beliefs or your right to answer or not answer questions. If you have nothing to contribute to the debate then leave.

I believe that some criticism is necessary. I never said otherwise but Zinni is not fit to utter opinions because of his checkered past in military affairs. That discredits the call right there.

I have never encouraged others to kill. However the life of a military person is to destroy his enemy. Lord Jesus was a peacemaker but he also challenged the Pharisees and the law makers of the day.

You shouldn't commit murder, you are right about that, but he says nothing about military conflict.

Oh yes he most definitely does. In a time of struggle between the Jews and the Romans, Jesus was expected to take arms and lead Israel as king of the Jews into a military victory over the Romans.

He did not. Also his work speak VOLUMES of peace peace and more peace!

He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

I'm slightly annoyed by the fact that you've turned a religious leaf, (whether its IC or OOC) and that I as an atheist, know more about Jesus than you do.

All I can do is :rolleyes:



1 - And here I thought it was the democrats running on an anybody but Bush ticket. Kerry was not the best candidate for President. You are right about that. Lieberman would've been a better choice for President.



Actually, I rather doubt this. The Democrats had a mixed messege and when you have a mixed messege, you do not win elections.



2 - Nope, No one said veto in this thread. However, let me ask you this! If this nation was invaded without UN Authorization, would you stand up and yell it as an Illegal Invasion?



3 - Unfortunately, you have a minor problem with this one. If our economy goes down, so does the world's.

1 - WRONG! Ever hear of such things as policies and beliefs? There the things most people tend to vote on.

2 - WRONG! Maybe no one said veto in this thread but they usually say it quite a bit at the UN. You remember them? Your country is supposed to be a member? And I think the whole world would be crying illegal invasion actually. Most people base their morales on their beliefs, not on a convenience of the time.

3 - WRONG! The USA does not contain one single natural resource that the rest of the world is in short supply of. If the rest of the world stopped using the dollar they would barely feel it.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As this thread and many others has proven, Corneliu is incapable of offering solid proof to back up any of assertions.

He'll play his "My Daddy is in the military so that makes me a military expert" card yet ignore the words of three, four and even five-star generals and hardcore Marines just because they're no longer in the active military- and willfully ignores that little part about active military being forbidden to speak out on their personal views of the current leadership.

His sole defense for the incompetence of the Bush Administration in general and Rumsfeld in specific is a circular logic which goes "Only active military can criticize Bush and Rumsfeld with any amount of credibility. It is against rules and regulations for active military to criticize Bush and Rumsfeld. Therefore any retired military who criticizes Bush and Rumsfeld has no credibility at all."

Instead of coming up with links to articles that back up his claims or refute others, he'll either reply with a blanket generalization with no factual backings, or more commonly he'll try to change the subject or avoid it altogether.

He'll use the United Nations as an excuse for the Iraq invasion, despite it being a well known fact that in the past he had a signature that blatantly expressed his contempt for the UN and its existence.

Corneliu has been owned by so many people on General over its history, my nickname for him is Communal Property. He's the biggest Bush Administration manslut on NS General, comparable to James "Jeff Gannon" Guckert.

In other words, don't hold your breath for him to make a rational and factually backed reply to your arguments folks.

This has been a public service announcement.
Has there been another outbreak of Cornman logic? I especially enjoy the part where retired Generals cannot disapprove of Rummy because they are somehow irrelevant now that they are retired and that active Generals should resign if they want to criticize Rummy. What brand of democracy is that? Republow Brand?

Scary stuff indeed!!

Oh yes he most definitely does. In a time of struggle between the Jews and the Romans, Jesus was expected to take arms and lead Israel as king of the Jews into a military victory over the Romans.

He did not. Also his work speak VOLUMES of peace peace and more peace!

He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.

I'm slightly annoyed by the fact that you've turned a religious leaf, (whether its IC or OOC) and that I as an atheist, know more about Jesus than you do.

I know precisely that Jesus said that. He said it Peter if I recall during Jesus's Betrail in the Garden of Gethsemeny. He was going to attack the Roman soldiers for Jesus said to bothsides Put your swords away. He who lives by the sword dies by it.

However, I do not see the fact that this has anything really to do with the military. The Israelis had a military prior to them being taken over by the Babylonians, who were taken over by the Medis and Persians, followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. This was also prophacied by none other than Daniel himself who told the king that there would be four world empires. And believe it or not, we only had four world empires. It was also predicted in the Book of Daniel that the legs of Iron would be divided. The Roman Empire later became divided.

But to get back to the original point, the jews were looking for a messiah to lead them out of bondage. This they actually got but not the way they were looking for. The Jews felt that Jesus should lead them out from under the yoke but Jesus was sent to this Earth by His Father to die for our sins and to have a gateway to heaven through His salvation. The Jews did get a messiah to lead them out of bondage but not under military rule.

All I can do is :rolleyes:

And why would that be? The USA's pissed off many nations and installed a huge amount of dictators. How's that not a terrible thing to do?

And here I thought it was the democrats running on an anybody but Bush ticket. Kerry was not the best candidate for President. You are right about that. Lieberman would've been a better choice for President.

Actually, I rather doubt this. The Democrats had a mixed messege and when you have a mixed messege, you do not win elections.

Without Kerry's flip-flopping, they might have actually done better. The negative democracy on show is always a weak excuse of an argument. Edwards might well have done a much better job as a leader.



Nope, No one said veto in this thread. However, let me ask you this! If this nation was invaded without UN Authorization, would you stand up and yell it as an Illegal Invasion?

I'd put about as much effort in to stopping it as the rest of the world put into stopping the USA attacking Iraq. And I'd veto sanctions on attackers, just as the USA vetoed anyone from doing anything about Iraq.


Unfortunately, you have a minor problem with this one. If our economy goes down, so does the world's.

Hardly. Your enormous debts are propped up by the EU and China. Those nations are the people with real economic power, as are India. The USA is a dying superpower.

When did Cornelius become so religious?

When did Cornelius become so religious?
When he ran out of answer it started. Coincedence?

When did Cornelius become so religious?

yah, it's pretty sad. not that he's become religious... but that he's hiding behind it.

He calls us hypocrits, but i think he needs to only look in a mirror to find one.

I'm pretty sure god doesn't want you as his servant - he's waiting for you to take off the blindfold and get up off your knees so you can be his friend.

I'm pretty sure god doesn't want you as his servant - he's waiting for you to take off the blindfold and get up off your knees so you can be his friend.

Oh ye of little faith. Those who keeps the Lord's Commandments shall see the Kingdom of Heaven.

When did Cornelius become so religious?

I renewed my committment to God and His Son Jesus Christ on Monday. Ever since then, I have become more calmer and more forgiving than I used to be. I no longer have to bear my burden alone.

When he ran out of answer it started. Coincedence?

Since when is refusing to answer questions running out of answers? The two are not compatible with one another.

yah, it's pretty sad. not that he's become religious... but that he's hiding behind it.

He calls us hypocrits, but i think he needs to only look in a mirror to find one.

I am not hiding behind my faith. Far from it.

Since when is refusing to answer questions running out of answers? The two are not compatible with one another.


Er, yes they are. Still here. And still waiting for answer. Are you man enough to provide them yet?

Er, yes they are. Still here. And still waiting for answer. Are you man enough to provide them yet?

I stated it before and I'll state it again! Because I am not answering the questions does not mean that I do not have the answers.

I stated it before and I'll state it again! Because I am not answering the questions does not mean that I do not have the answers.

In other words Communal Property, you don't have an answer right now and you're stalling.

Owned again.

In other words Communal Property, you don't have an answer right now and you're stalling.

Owned again.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

If you don't answer the questions, you merely give the impression that we're right.

If you don't answer the questions, you merely give the impression that we're right.

In a nutshell. When someone disagreees with you, if you want to maintain your position you argue against them by proving them wrong. So by not answering you are by default admitting you are wrong. I left this argument 5 hours ago, went for a beer and a curry with my friend, had a good laugh about Mornington Crescent and you STILL havn't answered. Therefore you either

1 - Don't know the answer

2 - Don't want to tell us because you don't want to embaress yourself by being wrong

3 - Or are just too plain stubborn to perepetuate your own stance and be wrong.

Which is it I wonder? :)

I have never encouraged others to kill. However the life of a military person is to destroy his enemy. Lord Jesus was a peacemaker but he also challenged the Pharisees and the law makers of the day.

You shouldn't commit murder, you are right about that, but he says nothing about military conflict.
What do you think God's will is when it comes to "carpet bombing" civilians or murdering prisoners of war? Do you still support these ideas?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

Thanks for that CH, real christian values there. Now he has found his faith do you think he will retract those statements? Somehow i doubt it. What a horrible little man, prepared to hide behind an internet handle to spout bile and not even have the courage to back up his arguments.

Oh look your offline. What a surprise. I'm going to bed now and then work tommorow. Be back in about 16 hours. If you have the balls to post then do so. If not then e-mail your address to me at danguard@hotmail.co.uk. IF you have the balls, I will come over to the US next week and discuss these issues with you IN PERSON. I have the time and money so don't be shy, Just waiting for your response. See you soon?

If you don't answer the questions, you merely give the impression that we're right.
And by answering them in the way he normally does he's better off saying nothing at all.

I do not have to answer questions that are poised to me. Nothing is written telling me that I have to answer these questions. I am not under an oath to answer all questions truthfully.

I seek my answers through various means. The answers will remain with me for the answers will be pointless in this thread which is full of hypocrits.


You are correct. You don't have to answer a single question. However, a failure to defend you assertions is a de facto admission that they are undefendable, and thus a consession.

In that light, can you please respond to this:

So:
a) the generals can't tell rummy he's wrong to his face while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted (a la Shinseki)
b) they can't say tell he's wrong in the press while on active duty because they'll loose their jobs or otherwise get shafted
c) they can't say rummy's wrong at all once they retire, because they forget everything they knew, even though they were involved in the planning and/or were on the ground in Iraq
d) and the press should keep after them to run the war correctly when rummy's behind the bad decisions because he over ruled their advice

WTF? You sure about all that?

If you don't answer the questions, you merely give the impression that we're right.

Again, believe what you will. There is no law about me having to answer any questions. You may think you are right but who is really ever right?

The truth is a three edged sword. There is your side, My side, and the truth is in the middle. No one is ever 100% right.

What do you think God's will is when it comes to "carpet bombing" civilians or murdering prisoners of war? Do you still support these ideas?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

Show me in the rule book where carpet bombing is illegal? Under the Rules of War, there are 3 buildings you don't hit. Religious Establishments, Hospitals, and Schools unless these buildings are being used by your enemy to shoot at you from.

As for murdering Prisoners of War, illegal combatants are not eligible for protection under the Geneva Conventions. The only way they are eligible is if they are part of a national military army or a militia with insignia somewhere visible on your body.

Oh look your offline. What a surprise. I'm going to bed now and then work tommorow. Be back in about 16 hours. If you have the balls to post then do so. If not then e-mail your address to me at danguard@hotmail.co.uk. IF you have the balls, I will come over to the US next week and discuss these issues with you IN PERSON. I have the time and money so don't be shy, Just waiting for your response. See you soon?

1) School internet here for some reason that I have yet to fathom, prevents me from posting during certain hours. I cannot explain this because I really do not know the answers and I doubt the tech people know how to fix it. Ironically, I have no trouble when I'm using the wireless function somewhere else on campus.

2) I also have a life here at school.

3) I also work here at school.

and 4) I had an appointment to talk to someone last night as well. Add these things up and it don't leave much time for posting.

Not to mention I've been gearing myself up for finals that are coming up in a couple of weeks.

Come now Corneliu, you can't possibly be in Rumsfeilds corner on this one ?
Corneliu is always on the side of the Bush Administration.