Is this fintstone...?

[CRH911S]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6593163/the_generals_speak/

Not only did the generals have issues with troop strengths Bremmer had issues as well.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by fintstone
Are there generals in Iraq that are asking for additional troops and not getting them? It is the first time I have heard this. Could you be more specific?

Originally posted by CRH911S

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...generals_speak/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only did the generals have issues with troop strengths Bremmer had issues as well.

Not a one of those generals was in Iraq during the war...or even in the military during the war. LOL.

[CRH911S]

Not a one of those generals was in Iraq during the war...or even in the military during the war.

So now we have assimilated conformists doubting the experience, wisdom and knowledge of generals

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by CRH911S


So now we have assimilated conformists doubting the experience, wisdom and knowledge of generals

No, he simply pointed out that your claim was based in ignorance. You said:

lenpuppy, at least during Nam when the generals asked for more troops they got them and that's where the dissimilarity ends.

Implying that the Generals in Iraq were not getting the troops they requested. You were wrong. A man would simply admit such and move on.

[CRH911S]

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

Gen. Anthony Zinni


When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number. Gen. Anthony Zinni

From the beginning, i was asked which side I took, Shinseki's or Rumsfeld's. And I said Shinseki. I mean, Rumsfeld proudly announced that he had told General Franks to fight this war with different tactics in which they would bypass enemy strongholds and enemy resistance and keep on moving. But it was shocking to me that the secretary of defense would tell the Army how to fight. He doesn't know how to fight; he has no business telling them. It's completely within civilian authority to tell you where to fight, what our major objective is, but it is absolutely no one's business but uniformed military to tell you how to do the job. To me, it was astonishing that Rumsfeld would presume to tell four-star generals, in the Army thirty-five years, how to do their jobs.

Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, deputy chief of staff for intelligence

I think the readers can decide for themselves.

[Moneyguy1]

SOmetimes details can be embarassing.

[CRH911S]

The trademark of an assimilated conformist is ignorance of the facts. Facts that you and your sidekick ignore out of personal convenience. I want you to picture a little wind-up toy soldier up against a wall. This is what you and your ilk sound like.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by CRH911S
The trademark of an assimilated conformist is ignorance of the facts. Facts that you and your sidekick ignore out of personal convenience. I want you to picture a little wind-up toy soldier up against a wall. This is what you and your ilk sound like.

We all know that there were disagreements in the prewar planning, this ALWAYS happens. Not sometimes, not occasionally, but ...............ALWAYS. This is not what you implied, and it is not what I claimed did not happen. I know this, you know this, which is why you deflected the issue.

[CRH911S]

Not a one of those generals was in Iraq during the war...or even in the military during the war. LOL.

Well, if you say so?

Unfortunately there isn't a morning after pill for ****ed up military invasions. Checkmate

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by CRH911S

Well, if you say so?

Unfortunately there isn't a morning after pill for ****ed up military invasions. Checkmate

I would love to know what the point you think you made is.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I would love to know what the point you think you made is.

Yes, me too....but that is a bit much to expect considering the earlier posts. That anyone that would answer a post about Generals in Iraq asking for more troops with a link to an article about retired generals who were not in Iraq or even in the military during the Iraq War who though we should ask for more troops is beyond imagination. I guess he never expected that anyone would actually read the article and realize the "generals" were a bit past their prime...and had no insight into current operations in Iraq.

Like all liberals, he does a good job with the name calling...since it does not require factual statements or knowledge whatsoever.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fintstone
That anyone that would answer a post about Generals in Iraq asking for more troops with a link to an article about retired generals who were not in Iraq or even in the military during the Iraq War who though we should ask for more troops is beyond imagination.

There is some subtextual presumption that the war was somehow bungled by poor decision making (asserted by those that are not in the decision making loop). It is assumed that the hindsight opinions (offered by American saboteurs) would have been superior, and therefore Bush's are obviously inferior. With as much gravity as they assert these self-serving assumptions one could argue that indeed Bush made all the right decisions. It is quite possible that those who contend Bush's decision making couldn't be better were correct. In fact, through the prism of history, Bush's actions were and are superior to any war strategy decision-making in world history...Okay, possibly not better than "ANY war strategy", but certainly not the worst in wars that have been thought to be brilliant or their outcome worthy.

To sit back and criticize Bush for not doing this or that perfectly, based on untested theory, is motivated by the desire to undermine Bush. This encourages and works to the advantage of the enemy...That is what is evil about the criticisms coming from the left, they are looking to undermine a President invested in protecting the country, caring not one ounce if it discourages American forces...The good of the country is forgotten by these types (who are motivated only by power) no matter if the country suffers.

[fintstone]

Just a bunch of "cold war" era generals that are jealous of the attention that current day military leaders get during a real "shooting war." They are just trying to "cash in" on the current situation....either to puff up the old ego or sell a book. If there is some problem fighting the current war...They are as much to blame....or even more so than current leaders..who had to go to war with the "military they had." The military left to them by these whiney retirees.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by fintstone
I
What claim are you talking about? You guys are really funny. You liberals claim that the current peacekeeping mission in Iraq is somehow like the Vietnam War...but cannot seem to post an actual similarity...

The "current peace" keeping mssion in Iraq. Well, thats going well, isnt it. Credible sources on the ground such as Paul McGough state that to reduce the US body count, the US has pretty much retreated into the Green Zone and letting the various Iraqi factions have at it, relying on Iraqi security forces. Teh fact that the Securtity Forces and the death squads wear the same uniform could be germane.

But Im fascinated. When did this "Peace keeeping" mission start? After the COTW rolled across the border, invaded the country and occupied it? After Iraqis welcomed the er, Liberators, with flowers? Now we are "peace keeping"?

You are a crack, Fint.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stuartj
The "current peace" keeping mssion in Iraq. Well, thats going well, isnt it. Credible sources on the ground such as Paul McGough state that to reduce the US body count, the US has pretty much retreated into the Green Zone and letting the various Iraqi factions have at it, relying on Iraqi security forces. Teh fact that the Securtity Forces and the death squads wear the same uniform could be germane.

But Im fascinated. When did this "Peace keeeping" mission start? After the COTW rolled across the border, invaded the country and occupied it? After Iraqis welcomed the er, Liberators, with flowers? Now we are "peace keeping"?

You are a crack, Fint.

The war against Iraq only lasted a few day. the government fell and the armies were defeated. And, yes, many soldiers were indeed welcomed with flowers.

Currently the US is engaged in a mission to protect Iraqis from terrorists that are killing thousands of innocents and to prevent civil war due to the power vacuum. Peacekeeping is the logical term. We certainly are not at war with the Iraqi government.

[stuartj]

Not at war with the current govt? Gosh, I wonder why.

You seem to forget that the country was invaded and occupied. Sort of puts the US in the same bag as Germany and the French and the Poles, 1939/40. Ofcourse the Poles and the French were heroic Freedom Fighters, the Bosch were oppressive occupiers. Its all different in Iraq.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by stuartj
Not at war with the current govt? Gosh, I wonder why.
...

Duh...because it was democratically elected...and has not threatened us in any way.

[CRH911S]

Updated: 2:28 a.m. HT March 21, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military said on Tuesday it was investigating Iraqi police allegations that its soldiers shot dead a family of 11 in their home last week.

The probe comes a day after a magazine published allegations that U.S. Marines killed civilians in another town in November. A criminal inquiry into those deaths was launched last week.

Time magazine said a patrol went on a rampage after one of their comrades was killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha, west of Baghdad. It published detailed accounts by townspeople.

Last Wednesday in Ishaqi, north of Baghdad, police accused U.S. troops of shooting dead 11 people, including five children, while the military said only four people were killed in all.

“Because of that discrepancy, we have opened an investigation,” Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a senior U.S. spokesman in Baghdad, said on Tuesday.

Accusations that American soldiers often kill innocent people has fuelled anger at the occupation among Iraqis over the past three years. They also complain that little disciplinary action has resulted in the few cases that are investigated.

'A clear and perfect crime'
Police in Ishaqi, 60 miles north of the capital, said five children under school age, four women and two men were shot dead by troops in a house that was then blown up.

“It’s a clear and perfect crime without any doubt,” said local police Colonel Farouq Hussein at the time, saying autopsies had found that all the victims were shot in the head.

The bodies, their hands bound, had been dumped in one room before the house was destroyed, Hussein said.

A U.S. military spokesman at the time said the four dead included a guerrilla and said they died after troops were fired on from the house as they arrived to arrest an al-Qaida suspect.

Major Tim Keefe said: “Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building ... Coalition Forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets.

“There was one enemy killed. Two women and one child were also killed in the firefight. The building ... (was) destroyed.”

Haditha civilians shot dead
Like Ishaqi, near Samarra, Haditha in western Anbar province is in an area that has seen much Sunni Arab insurgent activity.

On Nov. 20, U.S. Marines spokesman Captain Jeffrey Pool issued a statement saying that on the previous day a roadside bomb had killed 15 civilians and a Marine. In a later gunbattle, U.S. and Iraqi troops killed eight insurgents, he added.

U.S. military officials have since confirmed to Reuters that that version of the events of Nov. 19 was wrong and that the 15 civilians were not killed by the blast but were shot dead.

Time magazine said this week that video of the corpses it provided to the military in January had prompted the revision.

Among other cases in Anbar last year, an investigation was launched in July into the killing of a cousin of Iraq’s ambassador to the United Nations. The envoy said the young man’s shooting in his home near Haditha was “cold-blooded murder”.

The results of the investigation have not been published.

This week, Time quoted residents of Haditha accusing Marines of shooting dead the civilians in their homes. Among those quoted was nine-year-old Eman Waleed, who said she remembered troops pointing their guns through the door of her living room.

“I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head,” she said. “Then they killed my granny.”


Walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...but according to fintstone it isn't a duck.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by fintstone
Duh...because it was democratically elected...and has not threatened us in any way.

Duh, because it's a puppet government put into place via military dictatorship.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CRH911S
...
Walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...but according to fintstone it isn't a duck.

Whatever are you talking about? Your premise that a group of Generals that were retired before the Iraq War are actually in Iraq leading..and asking for more troops?

Are you sure it is just not another stupid liberal imitating a duck? Walking like a duck and quacking is good...but so does Howard Dean! Perhaps you should have attempted to see if it looked like a duck too.