Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez vs. The MSM

[BeanCounter]

A lot of generals are retiring and saying that we violated the rules of war

Please list and cite the total number of "a lot".

Bull**** statements like this is why you have no credibility here.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by BeanCounter

Please list and cite the total number of "a lot".

Bull**** statements like this is why you have no credibility here.

Off the top of my head...I'm sure I could find more if I looked for a minute or two. Please pardon any spelling errors.
Odom
Shineski
Newbold
Batiste
Sanchez
Clark
Powell


Adding to the list during a quick search:
Eaton
Zinni
Trainor

And from Batiste:
"Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women."

[BeanCounter]

You forgot the quotes from them saying we "violated the rules of war".

And I believe Sanchez was speaking directly to you as one of the main reasons we have problems in Iraq. You and the liberal media read his comments very differently than what I do. But then I was in it when you were building model cars at Momma's house.

[VRM]

Bernie,
From Zinni
“I can't think anyone would allow that to happen, that would not speak up. Well, what's the difference between a faulty plan and strategy that's getting just as many troops killed? It’s leading down a path where we're not succeeding and accomplishing the missions we've set out to do.”

From Batiste:
"Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba'athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort."

From Sanchez:
"OUR POLITICAL LEADERS MUST PLACE NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES ABOVE PARTISAN POLITICS, DEMAND INTERAGENCY UNITY OF EFFORT, AND NEVER AGAIN COMMIT AMERICA TO WAR WITHOUT A GRAND STRATEGY THAT EMBRACES THE BASIC TENETS OF THE POWELL DOCTRINE."

Powell said:
“I tried to avoid this war," “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.” This from the originator of the Powell Doctrine that Sanchez mentioned.

Odom:
"To date, I have seen no awareness that any political leader in this country has gone beyond tactical proposals to offer a different strategic approach to limiting the damage in a war that is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history."

Also from Odom:
"There is a knee-jerk tendency to say, “Well, if we left, it would be a mess. Therefore, we can’t leave.” That requires blinding oneself to the fact—the reality—that our presence is creating the mess, that we don’t keep a mess from happening by staying, and that we don’t have the alternative of not creating a mess. When we crossed the border of Iraq with the invasion, all these untoward outcomes were inexorably going to happen.

From the beginning I was unambiguously against this war. I said that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is not in our interest, it is in the interest of al-Qaeda and the interest of Iran."
Gee, didn't I say all that, too???

And don't forget Shinseki leaving because he did not agree with Rumsfield over troop levels. Force levels are one of the biggest aspects of the rules of war.

There is plenty more from these guys, but you can look it up for yourself.

Steve


(edited to clean up some quote marks)

[Jamo]

All prime examples of why they should STFU. They would all be taking credit for planning the damn thing if it was over in six months with Sadaam and Osama dead.

One of the reasons for inaction during the Clinton years is because everyone talked too much about what to do instead of having a leader who led. That's why the Cole and the embassies got hit, Somolia went FUBAR and why the Towers came down.

I'd rather be talking about why folks don't like us instead of continuing to let them kick our ass while we smile, but that's just me.

[Jamo]

Steve as President...

"General, I order you to take out the cruise missle launched by [insert bad guy] in his stolen sub which is headed for the White House, which, by the way, is where I'm currently taking a dump!"


General, in response...

"Sorry Mr. President, but I think that would be unconstitutional since that cruise missle belongs to another country and it may be a dud anyway...maybe we could talk about this first?"


President Steve...

"Awwwwshiiiiiiit!!!!!!....[silence]"

[cobra de capell]

Steve - OK, but you are as tiresome as Gore on the Global Warming issue - what is your point? Make that point, please and move on - vote for Dennis Kucinich - you and him have a lot in common - ideas, insights and personality.

Keep in mind these words:

"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."

-- Martin Luther King Jr.
_____

Bush did the right thing in his mind, he did the right thing in my mind, case closed.

[VRM]

CdC,
Yep, I know I'm tiresome. And I plan to stay that way until the thickheaded ones finally come to their senses.
And did you see what General Odom said: "I said that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is not in our interest, it is in the interest of al-Qaeda and the interest of Iran.". Our continued presence there is hurting our country more than it is helping.

Hey Jamo,
I must have missed the part where Iraq attacked us. I must have been on the can.

Getting back to the original point about MSM: War and controversy sells. Five years ago the majority of people wanted war with Iraq. The MSM (with a lot of help from the administration) demonised Iraq. People wanted to hear how good we were and how bad Iraq was. Now that things are going badly in Iraq people want to hear how badly our leaders did that job. People are looking for somewhere to place blame that does not involve them.

Ten years ago the MSM was all over Clinton for his indiscretions. It was controversial, and it sold. MSM is a business, and they sell what people want to buy.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

CdC,
Yep, I know I'm tiresome. And I plan to stay that way until the thickheaded ones finally come to their senses.
And did you see what General Odom said: "I said that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is not in our interest, it is in the interest of al-Qaeda and the interest of Iran.". Our continued presence there is hurting our country more than t is helping.
Hey Jamo,
I must have missed the part where Iraq attacked us. I must have been on the can.
Getting back to the original point about MSM: War and controversy sells. Five years ago the majority of people wanted war with Iraq. The MSM (with a lot of help from the administration) demonised Iraq. People wanted to hear how good we were and how bad Iraq was. Now that things are going badly in Iraq people want to hear how badly our leaders did that job. People are looking for somewhere to place blame that does not involve them.
Ten years ago the MSM was all over Clinton for his indiscretions. It was controversial, and it sold. MSM is a business, and they sell what people want to buy.
Steve

Carry on, Steve - I'm thinking that it's better to have you posting here than out on the streets scaring people.

On the other hand, I ran across this story the other day:

"A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo, and when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole is maintained by the regular culling of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can operate only as fast as the slowest brain cells through which the electrical signals pass."

To me, you are the slowest buffalo. Good luck with just sitting around waiting to get your head handed to you. We will be out there taking over countries, I'm thinking next should be Mexico with practically all the citizens already here.

BTW - when you do get your head handed to you, please have someone send it to me for my rock garden - sounds like a perfect addition.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

We will be out there taking over countries,

Now what does that remind me of...

[Jamo]

Steve...only because you seem to have forgotten this:

[VRM]

Jamo,

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html



I'd be quite happy if we had kept our focus on the people who did attack us. You seem to forget that it was not Iraq.

Steve

[Jamo]

That's what happens if you wait and ponder. You'll note Iraq did not have a similar success.

Read again what Bush said:

"...the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, STEVE."

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

Now what does that remind me of...

So Steve, how is this issue going for you here - do you think that you are going to change minds and hearts?

You know, it's you on one side and all Club members on the other. Do you think that we are delusional or is it possible that you are delusional?

Some input - seek out the Prius Club.

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by VRM

We won!! Congratuations! Your efforts helped this country persevere through these tough times and defeat the enemy. We can leave now, right?

I don't think it is going to get much play at all. Once we declare victory we have no more reason to stay. Based on a couple of speeches that Bush has given I really think we are not going to begin leaving until the oil production bill in the Iraqi legislature is signed. Most Iraqis are not keen on signing it, but some are in favour of doing so because they think it will get us out of their country.

We will see, but that's my prediction.
Steve

Fine with me...but you know its going to take more than that.

[bomelia]

Dam Jamo, that put it back into perspective. People like Steve (not being mean here) would only be satisfied if someone snapped a picture of Sadaam in the pilot's seat right before impact. There is a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but one that is much more complicated than can be explained here. If by now, one does not understand it, one never will. Because the geo-political blinders are firmly in place.

Mike

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Jamo

That's what happens if you wait and ponder. You'll note Iraq did not have a similar success.

Read again what Bush said:

"...the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, STEVE."

Jamo,
I'll note that Iraq didn't even try. Hussein had been a really minor 'threat' for a few decades, and nothing ever came of it. Iraq was an annoyance.
Pre-emptive strikes on nations that look cross-eyed at us is a stupid policy that will ultimately cause our demise. It is also the ultimate in paranoia. Oh, and it's against the law. The lesson that other nations will learn from this is that if you don't have nukes you run the risk of invasion. If you do have nukes (as NK does) we will treat you quite a bit better.

CdC,
Amazingly enough, it is not just me on one side. I just happen to be one of the most vocal and tenacious. I enjoy a good argument. I just wish that more of you would actually make arguments instead of trying to get me to join Prius clubs. To me, that sounds like your argument just does not hold up under scrutiny.
I would be fine with eliminating the politics and religion in the lounge entirely. I used to only post things regarding Cobra history. I think even Jamo might be willing to acknowledge that I have more than a passing interest in Cobra (and other race car) history.

Steve

[VRM]

Originally Posted by bomelia

Dam Jamo, that put it back into perspective. People like Steve (not being mean here) would only be satisfied if someone snapped a picture of Sadaam in the pilot's seat right before impact. There is a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but one that is much more complicated than can be explained here. If by now, one does not understand it, one never will. Because the geo-political blinders are firmly in place.

Mike

Mike,
There is NO connection between 911 and Iraq. Hussein was a military dictator. Had we been smarter we could have even used him to help fight Al Quaida as Al Quaida was a threat to him as well. Ok, so that might have been very difficult in the short term, but he had an interest in seeing Al Quaida disbanded. As do a lot of ME countries governments.

Steve

[Jamo]

I think you make some valid points on many issues, Steve, just not with regard to national security.

An annoyance? Besides the United States, Sadaam's Iraq is the only other nation to have actually used an WMD which killed thousands since WWI. He gassed his own folks. He had Scuds which could reach Israel and other nations of interest to us from the western deserts. He attacked Kuwait. He attacked Iran. He continued to violate international law (preventing inspections and the no-fly zone).

Annoyance?

Look what a stateless Osama did with a couple of crop duster pilots.

Where in the he!! did you come up with your rules of engagement, and what makes you think they are the law?

Waltz believes that international anarchy causes nations to act without regard to the international community's interests. The UN does not (cannot) police the world. Unless somebody fills that gap, rouge nations will act upon the existing anarchy. Given that the UN is worthless, and the USSR is gone, we're it.

Snyder explains that rouge nations act because they believe 1) nobody's going to stop them because the other nations are afraid and 2) expansion provides security. That led to Japan's blunder in WWII, and can even be seen as the cause for the fall of most of the great expansionist empires (Persia, Alexander's domain, the Mongols, Rome, Germany and even the USSR...the bigger and more diverse the empire, the more one has to control and defend). America has never based its decisions on those two misconceptions...we got a bit out of hand with the Monroe Doctrine, but we controlled ourselves (Canada and Mexico are safe for now, and the oceans help), and we now have learned (unfortunately the hard way) that others have to believe we won't sit by and take it.

Liberal international thought dismiss both Waltz and Snyder. They believe that nations will always work for the common good and always act in a logical fashion when nobody pushes back. Chamberlain thought that way...many others that we consider complete and utter dumbasses did as well.

[Sharroll Celby]

Going into Iraq was a big mistake in that we took our eyes off the main target, Osama bin Laden.
Making Iraq into a democracy WONT work long-term; remember Iran, pre- and post-Ayatollah.