Why is Rumsfeld still here?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Sep 30 2006, 08:50 PM) [snapback]326270[/snapback]</div>

What!?!? Neocons is extreme left liberals??? :lol: :wacko:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 10:25 AM) [snapback]326495[/snapback]</div>

Did you not read the second link? I even highlighted the main point . . . (here, let me make it easier for you to read) . . .

''He is a very progressive guy and many of these guys [in uniform] still want their heavy divisions," said retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, attributing much of the bitterness toward Rumsfeld to generals wishing to preserve their fiefdoms.

Do you really think that these bitter generals, once they retire, would remain quiet?

Rumsfeld has done more to transform the US military away from an old style heavy military into an ultra-modern, nimble, integrated fighting force.
Do you think the generals who were in charge of the horse mounted calvary were bitter with the demise of their units? YOU BET YAH!
These generals are the modern day equivalent of their horse mounted compatriots. Bitter to the end.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 10:25 AM) [snapback]326495[/snapback]</div>

So how would you “change course�
a.) Send in more troops to restore order?
b.) Cut and run?

Sorry, no 20/20 hindsight pontificating allowed. This war was fought with the new ultra-modern military, and massive numbers of troops were not needed to bring down Saddam and crush the Iraqi army.

Mistakes were made.

Dragonfly, you are now SecDef. What are you going to do about the Iraq which was dropped in your lap? :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Oct 1 2006, 12:05 PM) [snapback]326521[/snapback]</div>

Just a couple of points:

MacArthur and Eisenhower came out of the old school of the horseback military. They seemed to handle the change pretty well. You have any real examples of general officers from that era causing difficulties? I can't think of any right off.

Your two are the only choices possible? It seems like you probably didn't even think of these as original thoughts. Bushies all speak in the same dialect and use the same words. Just listen to the Sunday talk shows when the administration flacks fan out to the different networks. They all speak exactly the same words from a script. And so here.

Cut and run, islamofascism, stay the course etc. Iraq is certainly Islamic but we're closer to fascism than they are. They don't even have a government to bow down to.

So many say we must "win the war." What does that mean? How will we know we have won? What will we win? What were we told our objective, the "winning strategy," was when we entered this disaster, in which even the Iraqis now want us out by a solid majority? Which side are we on, the Sunni's or the Shia's? The majority of BOTH sides reported that they favor US troops being shot! With friends like that......

What does "cut and run" mean? Does anybody really advocate we just drop our weapons and race out as fast as our feet can carry us? Of course not. This is just a debasing term thrown at anybody who looks for a better way. If you can't argue well, call names, no matter how silly. Max Cleland learned this the hard way, didn't he? As did McCain and Kerry, among a multitude of others. How about the Biden plan for getting us out, as clearly stated over and over again by many on my side? Look it up. What's your plan, besides parroting "stay the course"?

"This war was fought with the new ultra-modern military," I read. I'm guessing you never served in the military and only fight with a mouth. Otherwise you'd be a little more sensitive to the cries of our dying and wounded. They aren't chess pieces. The soldiers I hear from tell me that this "ultra modern" force is protecting itself with improvised sandbags and "hillbilly armor" scrounged from local dumps, while Rumsfeld, on his visits, travels around in special steel armored vehicles. I have references. They die because we don't supply them with what they need. We're now accepting recruits with fewer qualifications than we ever had in a no-draft period.

During WWII a computer-less America churned out 4,000 AIRCRAFT a month. We are building 48 vehicles for our present day troops in the same period, even though the manufacturers say they can do considerably better if asked to do so by the government, according to testimony in the senate hearings. Body armor is supplied by loving relatives in many cases, not the government. We're too busy with tax cuts.

Crushing Saddam isn't where the troops were needed, as every general involved with the planning tried to explain to Rumsfeld's deaf ears. It was the "afterward" that we needed them for, which Rumsfeld didn't even plan for. And, by the big way, the war didn't "fall" into Rumsfeld's lap: he charged into it with full vigor. Iraq wasn't Pearl Harbor! "Mistakes were made." Using the passive voice eliminates the perpetrators of these "mistakes" in which none of them suffered so much as a pay cut, while our troops die daily for their errors. Pompous windbags in ivory towers move the little pieces around the sand-board, testing quaint theories that kill our youth, while their admirers applaud and line their pockets with the fruit of this perfidy!

For those so passionately behind this war and its merits, why not sign up for a tour, or talk your kids into it? They'll take just about anybody these days. I saw on the last death report that a 59 year old Sergeant was just killed. Somebody has to die for all of Rumsfeld's arrogance, why not those who believe in him so strongly? Oh, I see......you don't believe THAT strongly.....What was that about "pontificating?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 1 2006, 07:07 PM) [snapback]326615[/snapback]</div>

I second that idea!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 10:04 PM) [snapback]326671[/snapback]</div>

The Extremist Lefty Calls the Republicans (neocons)
I came up with a word to describe The EXTREME LEFTIES (Decepticons)

I checked into the Military they wouldnt take me due to one physical imparement and age...

Legaly blind in one eye. (however I qualified to shoot and carry)

And Im 37.... (go figure)..

Plus Im choosing to stay out of this argument at this time...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Oct 1 2006, 07:38 PM) [snapback]326688[/snapback]</div>

Decepticons:

That is so freakin' funny I dropped my latte! Let's parse those words.

Neocon: From Neo (New) + con (Conservative) (This is hateful? Sounds right on.)
Decepticon: From Decept (A liar) + i (?) + con (Conservative)

A Decepticon is a lying conservative.
Huh? That's what he calls the Extremist Lefties?

There's something wrong there.

How about Deceprogs for lying Progressives.
Or Falserals for untrue Liberals? Call us "Falsies" for short.

They're not very good words but they should get you to thinking along more realistic lines. Calling a liberal a conservative is, well, deceptive.

And we are not only liars, as you so brilliantly discerned, but cunning and clever as the devil (whom we secretly worship in old union halls, while chanting Barbra Streisand tunes.) I've read a dozen liberal-generated books which falsely outline lies, evasions, equivocations and dirty schemes perpetrated by this administration and which appear to be documented seven ways from Sunday. It takes somebody mighty devious to lie this often and well. Then we back them up with data that looks real! It can almost make semi-ignorant dolts come join us. I mean we can show interviews with Dick Cheney that, simply due to our control of the media, make him look almost sinister. The wife of this kindly man, who had such high priorities earlier in his life, is often distressed by this. Ha! We are heartless!

There is no end to our hatred of America and our will to see the government fall so that we might glory in the warmth of those islamofascists we so admire and coddle, to use the President's own word. I just finished a book today, "The Greatest Story Ever Sold," which is chock full of our lies, and make them seem so true I found tears on my cheek. Names, dates, exact citations....How do we do it? Talk about Evil Genius!

If only Ann Coulter would relax her strict ethical standards just an iota, we wouldn't stand a chance. But no, our winning tactic is that the Extreme Righties are so rigidly tied to pure truth and the spreading of goodness that their hands are tied in doing battle with us. You don't stand a chance with the seasoned standard deviant leaders who whip us on in our frenzy!

"A Lie is truth!" One of our great Lefty authors once wrote that. Words to live by.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]326530[/snapback]</div>

Didn't know that was my mission in life, but I'll do you one better . . . How about (active duty) General Douglas MacArthur outright publicly disobeying President Truman regarding a limited or full scale Korean war. (I did a high school political history report on this subject eons ago :blink: )
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...rt/1992/MJA.htm

Is it better having elected and appointed civilians with full control of the military, or to have generals - who are experts in military tactics - have full control?

In 1962, should President Kennedy have listened to General LeMay and strategically take-out the recently discovered Cuban nuclear missiles? Did General LeMay know more about the geopolitical situation at the time, or did the President of the United States? General LeMay later ran for Vice President in 1968. What was his solution for Vietnam? . . .“bomb North Vietnam back into the Stone Age.†. . . which may have been just enough to have China and/or the Soviet Union become fully involved in the war. <_<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Generals are good at strategic military logic. That doesn't mean you want them dictating US foreign policy!

Why are ultra-liberals NOW so eager to embrace what A FEW retired generals have to say? (Aren't these the same “baby killers†of the past?) Could it be . . . dare I say . . . P.O.L.I.T.I.C.S.?

Do I need to go back further? How about during President Lincoln's time? How about President Washington himself??? How far back would you like me to go? How good are you at military history?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]326530[/snapback]</div>

And I am disgusted. Not for what their message purports to be, but for what damage is causes the constitutionally derived civilian control of the military. If military members don't like how civilians run the military, then run for political office. The military is run on hierarchical leadership, not on consensus, vote of confidence, or poll numbers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]326530[/snapback]</div>

So I guess we are like-minded.
But would the added monetary costs be OK with you? There have been many here on PriusChat and elsewhere complain vehemently about the monetary costs, not just the human costs.
Do you think the military should have a blank check when it comes to troop safety?
P.S. The Humvee was never meant to be an armored personnel carrier or be pressed into battle like it is in Iraq - Warfighting is a constantly evolving art . . . and placing armor on Humvees and using them in asymmetrical urban warfare situations is just one of those changes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]326530[/snapback]</div>

Please show me one time, anywhere, where I have said I am for the status quo . . . where I have uttered anything along the lines of “stay the course.†I too wish there were more troops in Iraq, but my biggest fear is the Democrats coming into power, cutting off funding for the war effort, and initiating unending congressional witch-hunt investigations during a time of war . . . A recipe for disaster!

The cut and run and anti-military liberals are licking their chops.
What do you think Congressman Dennis Kucinich – with his proposed cabinet-level United States Department of Peace – would do?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 1 2006, 11:01 PM) [snapback]326700[/snapback]</div>

Cornered by who? I haven't gotten cornered by anyone on this thread. I mearly replyed to your question.

If I was really cornered, I would have to come out


Now these two make the "Falsies" Cut & Run.



Yeah ok Falsies sounds better.. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I just want to know one thing: Why do conservatives hate America? The America I love was founded on the Constitution. Conservatives have spent the last six years doing everything they can to dismantle that, especially the Bill of Rights.

The America I love is government of the people, by the people, for the people. Not government of the billionaires, by the President's college buddies, for the Halliburton stockholders.

Why DO conservatives hate America?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Oct 2 2006, 04:56 AM) [snapback]326767[/snapback]</div>

Ann Coulter is hot. But she lost all credibility when 20% of her book was spent "debunking" evolution. Not that she had any credibility to begin with.

By the way. The reference to violence as a response, make you seem even more of a chickenhawk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Oct 2 2006, 10:33 AM) [snapback]326837[/snapback]</div>

Conservitive hate america???? :blink: :huh:

I believe its the Dems That have been changing the, I mean amending the constitution amd atempting to take away certain rights we americans cherish : ie gun control, Banning assualt rifles, ect.

I see that Bush lifted the ban on assualt rifles

Not a goverment of billionaires? I see you would rather the goverment take their money and give it to you.?
I remember the taxing I got under the Clinton years I almost had to apply for welfare.. Me and my 26k a year job with no kids to claim left me with enough cash to put $10 in the gas tank, $20 in groceries, $227 in rent & $25 for phone, every 2 weeks...

Now I have a better stand with less taxation... (I would now be concidered lower middle class) (instead low to no class) living on barrowed time before having to move to a card board box..

Really I want whatever your smoking, taking or drinking.... (as long as its legal) :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Oct 2 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]326899[/snapback]</div>

Let's see, we of the left value: the right of privacy, the Geneva Convention, no torture, a legal system controlled by law, not a president's whim and a bunch of other things formerly we thought were our rights.

The right values: gun control, ability to own assault rifles. And if you corner them they come out shooting. Do policemen really want to face law-breakers armed with assault rifles? I'd heard differently from cops I know.

Priorities.......

BTW, I'm not a big nit-picker about spelling but sometimes it gets to me, especially the misspelling of words that one purports to believe in so strongly: conservative, government, assault, America. It makes me think they aren't words the writer has much familiarity with. Spell checkers are free, even after the Clinton years.

How much is your gas bill today? How big was your tax cut under Bush?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 1 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]326615[/snapback]</div>

Oh come on . . . Geesh! . . . do you people congregate under the same rock????

Rep. Nancy Pelosi Voices Support of Murtha Plan for Immediate US Exit from Iraq</span>
http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/223393.htm

<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 1 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]326615[/snapback]</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>"This war was fought with the new ultra-modern military," I read. I'm guessing you never served in the military and only fight with a mouth.[/b][/quote]Wrong again! I am a retired US Navy / Navy Reserve NCO. I served 22 years. If you don't believe me, put up $50 for a willing PriusChatter of your choice here in Northern California to check my ID. . . I can even prove I was in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield / Desert Storm.
If I am lying, I will pay you back $1,000 and never post here on PriusChat again.
What have YOU done? <_<
<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 1 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]326615[/snapback]</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>Otherwise you'd be a little more sensitive to the cries of our dying and wounded. They aren't chess pieces. The soldiers I hear from tell me that this "ultra modern" force is protecting itself with improvised sandbags and "hillbilly armor" scrounged from local dumps[/b][/quote]Don't even try to lecture me on sensitivity toward soldiers in war. I helped deliver ground troops to battle (I saw the fear and excitement in their eyes), and I helped wounded soldiers going the opposite direction.

Read my above post regarding Humvees.

As for all you “Support Our Troops By Bringing Them Back Home†types . . . I can tell you first hand, anti-war protests have a demoralizing effect on the troops. WAY TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS! Freaking Ingrates! :angry:
<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 1 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]326615[/snapback]</div><div class=\'quotemain\'>We're now accepting recruits with fewer qualifications than we ever had in a no-draft period. [/b][/quote]Wrong, wrong, wrong!

“So far this year [2005], 91 percent of Army recruits were high school graduates, compared to the Defense Department’s 90 percent benchmark. Seventy-six percent of new recruits scored in the top half of the AFQT, compared to DoD’s 60 percent threshold.â€
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/lib...0311-afps03.htm

Compare that against the 1970s. Look at figure 2.5. It shows that only the Air Force had attained at least a 90% percent high school graduate rate . . . BUT IN ONLY TWO YEARS!!!!!
http://www.dod.gov/prhome/poprep2002/chapt...2_education.htm

Your statement is flat out WRONG!

Raising the maximum age of enlistment is not an attempt to go after recruits with less qualifications. Most of these older recruits bring valuable skills and maturity into the military.
It doesn't take 18 year old butt cheek muscles to sit in front of a computer monitor for hours on end.
After all, 40 is the new 30.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8145439/
<span style="color:#009900">
"A few years ago, we had a marathon runner with a master's degree who spoke Russian, and he wanted to join the Army," says Mr. Hilferty. "We said no because he was 40. Where is the sense in that?"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0906/p01s02-usmi.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 1 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]326615[/snapback]</div>

And how would you describe what you have been saying?
Liberal lies, propaganda, and denials is what I see.