General Says Bush doesn't listen to his Generals

[Mikeinsmd]

Here ya go Forestool....

 

[MMDad]

Isn't this general kind of like T.O. whining that Parcells didn't do exactly what T.O. said? Wasn't W the one who was elected to be CinC, not the general?

 

[PsyOps]

A failed argument? I think the situation in Iraq skews a lot closer to my way of thinking than yours. It's not a word game, I am intelligent enough to know that just because I feel passionately about a particular issue, I don't hold the key to right or wrong. That is the basis of an opinion. When someone makes karma comments such as "tard", "dimwit" or any other of the choice comments I get, they obviously can't make that distinction. Besides, I'm not arguing with you or anyone else on the topic of the Iraqi occupation. Arguing would imply that my mind wasn't made up and I could be convinced otherwise. I am absolutely sure in my mind that we don't belong there and given what we now know, we never should have been.

First off, I don’t give such Karma. It’s either green or nothing. If I have something negative to say I will post it to you in the forum up front. But never personally attack. The cowards that anonymously send foul Karma have no sense of integrity and live in a dishonest world. I have no doubt they live their real lives this way.

Secondly, what is this situation that skews more to your way of thinking? The fact that things are going so bad? Are they really going so bad or is that all that is being fed to you? Read this . This sort of thing happens nearly every day; it just doesn’t get reported. I’m not wearing rose-colored glasses and realize things are difficult in Iraq. Things could have been better; but they could have been a whole lot worse too. I have tried to convey in the past that 80% of Iraq lives in relative peace. There is no attention or focus on this in the media, so it would be automatic that folks believe things are going badly.

Lastly, the term argument does not mean to “argue” in the literal sense. An argument is (in a court-room sense) giving your side of the debate. So it was not to imply that you were arguing, but rather debating.

 

[forestal]

Extrapolating off on fantasical tangents again?

All I said was that some of you need convincing that Bush hasn't, and isn't listening to his Generals.

Convinced of what Forest? That Bush made mistakes? That Rumsfeld made mistakes? I don't think anyone is doubting this.

Are you trying to convince us that because of these mistakes we should just abondon the cause? If you get in a car accident due to your own mistake are you going to quit driving altogether?

Here is something a little interesing though. Here is a quote from a DoD article :



Then there is this from Vanity Fair:



One gives a very positive outlook on Iraq and the other doens't. You chose which is the REAL Gen. Eaton.

 

[forestal]

bleh, I heard that Clauswitz line as a freshman in college, you'll have to do better than that if you want to impress us as being the Lord of War.

Those of us who study war professionally (Listen up, Coventry, I DO know what I'm talking about) know that Clauswitz said "War is a continuation of policy by other means." and

The decision to go to war is not secondary to a testosterone storm or a brain fart, it fits into the grand strategy of a nation. Though the absolute justification for entering a war may not be adequate on its own, the decision taken in light of the nation's vital interests can make war the only option.

The decision on how vast or destructive a war to execute is also determined by political forces. Thus, you might have the forces and the justification to bomb a nation into the dark ages (or cross into Bagdad and destroy Saddam in 1991) but you don't because yoru allies would then become your enemies interspersed in your ranks. You might have the justification to turn Iraq into glass parking lot, but don't because others in the region will turn it into an opportunity to do mischief.

In other words, the generals know how to fight a war, the politicians know how to prosecute a war. And generals never want to prosecute a war.

 

[PsyOps]

Extrapolating off on fantasical tangents again?

All I said was that some of you need convincing that Bush hasn't, and isn't listening to his Generals.

Do you mean ALL of his generals or just some of them. Like I said before, if he chose to listen to the generals that are complaining now, the other generals would be complaining that he didn't listen to them. And you would be using them for your political hits.

 

[czygvtwkr]

It is probably more like "General says Bush didn't listen to him."

 

[Dork]

Extrapolating off on fantasical tangents again?

All I said was that some of you need convincing that Bush hasn't, and isn't listening to his Generals.

Hey Forcedstool. Try a new screen name and post under that one. We'll see how long it takes before someone guesses it's you. I'll bet it won't take very long. You're one of a kind and I don't mean that in a nice way.