[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

I wasn't even going to respond to this post, but I just noticed this part. ROFLMAO. He never was canned! His term was up! That's just liberal BS scare tactics and you buy into them. Do the "research" that's a word you should try to remember from now on.

As far as him being Franks' BOSS...well, I had a boss at HomeTown Buffet once, does that make him better than be because he was my boss? The president is Shinseki's BOSS...Not only that, but I cannot?

Plus, how do you undermine a man like Franks' credibility?

"As he did later in Iraq, General Franks crafted a plan for Afghanistan that was daring and innovative. He managed to do in Afghanistan with 10,000 troops what the Soviet Union had failed to accomplish with 100,000. In fact, in no small measure he was successful, I believe, precisely because he understood the difference between doing it with 10,000 and doing it with 100,000." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...8/ai_109354254

What's so wrong with his prediction of the demise of the constitution? Isnt' that happening at this very moment? I may not agree with the word "demise", but his general idea is correct. It will be a different constitution if things keep going the way they are with judges whose opinions influence their interpretations of the constitution too much, and with organizations like the ACLU using these judges to further their now ridiculous agenda.

OK, They just named his successor 14 months early, effectively cutting him off at the knees as a commander. They did punish him for "not getting it". And again, you never responded to the fact that he was RIGHT, and they did not listen to him and give him what he needed (that being the point which started the whole argument.)

I didn't say Franks was a poor General (well, except he didn't get OBL becuase he did it on the cheap), Just that he kisses political ass.

Bush has Franks in his court. Kerry has Shinseki, Shalikachvili (sp), Chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert storm, Gen Merril McPeak (Chief of Air Force in the '90's and Bush supporter in 2000). He can't find an intel officer that's not a political appointee who will support him and there is a whole orginaization of high level intelligence retirees who are actively campaingning against him (Veteran Intelligence Professional For Sanity- google Ray McGovern or Greg Thielman).

No high level person actively in their job can act in a partisan fashion, so you have to go with the retirees.

And more truth is leaking out of Iraq. I would never suggest that all military members feel this way, but don't kid yourself that the war is going well. As Phillip K. **** said, " Reallity is that which doesn't go away when you choose to ignore it."

From Washington Post:

washingtonpost.com
For Marines, a Frustrating Fight
Some in Iraq Question How and Why War Is Being Waged

By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page A01

ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq -- Scrawled on the helmet of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon and western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said Perez, 20.

Now, two months into a seven-month combat tour in Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the events of Sept. 11 and the war he is fighting. Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by a conflict whose origins remain unclear and frustrated by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly faceless enemy.

"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here," Perez said. "First of all, you cannot engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here."

Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many areas of the country.

Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records. Four have been killed, two in combat.

Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness of armor -- bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees -- in the face of persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times, insurgents tried to hit the base and missed.
Realities on the Ground

Several members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States and the reality of their daily lives.

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."

Maio said that when he arrived in Iraq, "I didn't think I was going to live this long, in all honesty." He added, "it ain't that bad. It's just part of the job, I guess."

As a reporter began to ask Maio another question, the interview was interrupted by the scream of an incoming rocket and then a deafening explosion outside the platoon's barracks. Pandemonium ensued.

"Get down! Get down!" yelled the platoon's radio operator, Cpl. Brandon Autin, 21, of New Iberia, La., his orders laced with profanity. "Get in the bunker! Get in the bunker now!"

Members of the platoon raced out of their rooms to a 5-by-15-foot bunker, located outside at the end of the one-story building. The dirt-floor room was protected by a low ceiling and walls built out of four-foot-thick sandbags. Once in the bunker, several Marines lit cigarettes, filling the already-congested room with smoke.

"The reality right now is that the most dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong," he said. "We're catching them in a lie."

Senior officers said they shared many of the platoon's frustrations but added that it was difficult for low-level Marines to see the larger progress being made across Iraq. Maj. Douglas Bell, the battalion's executive officer, said "one of the most difficult things about the insurgency is identifying the enemy."

Bell said it was frustrating for "every Marine in the battalion" to search for insurgents on a daily basis, only to be attacked repeatedly with bombs and mortars detonated or launched by an invisible enemy. "You want to get your hand around his frigging collar and kick his ass," Bell said. "But they slip away."

Bell said Marines offering dire predictions for Iraq were not taking into account the training of the new Iraqi security forces. He said the installation of the new Iraqi army, Iraqi National Guard and police across the country would lay the foundation for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"That's how we're going to get out of Iraq," Bell said. "That's how America is going to get out of Iraq."

The Marines acknowledged that the elusiveness of the insurgents was frustrating. "You don't really know who you're fighting. You're more or less fighting objects," said Elston, the lance corporal from New Jersey. "You see something on the side of the road. It blows up."

But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere near ready and may never be.

"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."
The Price of Precaution

The Marines also expressed frustration that they were unable to fight more aggressively because of restraints in the rules of engagement imposed by senior commanders.

The rules, which require Marines to positively identify their target as hostile before shooting, are cumbersome in the face of urban guerrilla warfare, several of them said.

"When we get called out, we'll sit there staging there for an hour," Maio said. "By the time we're ready to move, they're up and gone. A few weeks ago, the Iskandariyah police station was under attack. We staged for damn near an hour before we went out. It's stupid. You have to wait to get approval and all this other stuff."

Kelly, the lance corporal from Alaska, said he understood the need to protect civilians but that the restraints were jeopardizing American lives. "It seems as if they place more value on obeying the letter of the law and sacrificing our lives than following the spirit of the law and getting the job done," he said of his commanders.

Bell said the Marines' frustration was understandable but that it was extremely difficult to make a determination of hostile intent following a roadside bombing that might have been detonated by anything from a remote-controlled toy car to a cell phone. "That's a pretty difficult decision to make for a 19-year-old kid," he said.

Lance Cpl. Jeremy Kyrk, 21, of Chicago, said the insurgents took advantage of the limitations imposed on U.S. troops. "They don't give us any leeway, they don't give us any quarter," he said. "They catch people and cut their heads off. They know our limits, but they have no limits. We can't compete with that."
A Decision to Serve

Perez said the frustrations inherent in the war became apparent almost immediately after he arrived in Iraq in late July. A Colombian immigrant, he said he decided to join the Marine Corps after attending the funeral of a friend who had died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The friend, Thomas Hetzel, was a volunteer firefighter at the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department on Long Island, where Perez also volunteered.

At the time, Perez was studying criminal justice at Nassau Community College. "While I was at the funeral I was looking at his little daughter cry," he said. "He had a pregnant wife and two kids. I just said, 'All right, this is what I want to do.' "

But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."

Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war and all the Sept. 11 stuff, but it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."

Perez said he thought that in some ways he was still fighting terrorists "and I can see how they might attack the United States in the future. It's a link, but it's not really based in the same thing."

Perez added that he now believes the primary reason for the U.S. presence is to help the Iraqis. "But they don't seem like they want to be helped," he said. "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."
Questioning Orders

The frustration of the Marines was evident one afternoon last week as members of the platoon traveled from Forward Operating Base Kalsu back to Camp Iskandariyah. An attack had reportedly taken place in the area, and members of the platoon were asked to leave their Humvees and walk up a road to look for suspicious activity.

Traffic quickly began to pile up: cars packed with families, trucks loaded with animals and vegetables. The line of vehicles would have taken hours to search. An order was suddenly passed for the Marines to search all buses for insurgents or weapons.

"This is what we call a dog-and-pony show," said Kelly, the heavyset, sharp-tongued lance corporal from Fairbanks. He said the operation was essentially a performance for American reporters who were traveling with the Marines. "This is so you can write in your paper how great our response is," he said.

Combs and another Marine boarded a small bus packed mostly with women and children. He walked up the center aisle carrying his M-16 assault rifle, then got off, disgusted.

"We just scared the living [expletive] out of a bunch of people," he said. "That's all we did."

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"

[size]

The length of some posts in this thread is amazing.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

OK, They just named his successor 14 months early, effectively cutting him off at the knees as a commander. They did punish him for "not getting it". And again, you never responded to the fact that he was RIGHT, and they did not listen to him and give him what he needed (that being the point which started the whole argument.)

This is totally a null argument. First off, what is the biggest problem the Iraqi citizens have with the Americans? THEY ARE VIEWED AS OCCUPIERS!! What sense does it make to piss them off more and send more troops in there? If they're seeing troops on every corner there is a very large chance that more people would be "pissed" about that.

Now, how did naming a successor cut him off at the knees??? They DID NOT REPLACE AND OR FIRE HIM! Did he go limp with self -pity? That's all I can think of.

I didn't say Franks was a poor General (well, except he didn't get OBL becuase he did it on the cheap), Just that he kisses political ass.

Franks was never politically active (ie campaigning, etc.) before this election because he beliefs in a cause and a person. People are entitled to their own beliefs and there's nothing wrong with doing something lawful about it.

Bush has Franks in his court. Kerry has Shinseki, Shalikachvili (sp), Chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert storm, Gen Merril McPeak (Chief of Air Force in the '90's and Bush supporter in 2000). He can't find an intel officer that's not a political appointee who will support him and there is a whole orginaization of high level intelligence retirees who are actively campaingning against him (Veteran Intelligence Professional For Sanity- google Ray McGovern or Greg Thielman).

I guess you didn't watch the RNC...there was a scrollling list of 250 generals, admirals, .. that support Bush. I found a link to the story LINK

"Each of us on this platform, along with countless others, including more than 250 retired admirals and generals, whose names you see on the screen behind me, stand united," said retired Gen. P.X. Kelley, former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. "United under the firm conviction that the best way to defend America today is to stand united behind our resolute commander in chief, and re-elect President George W. Bush."
No high level person actively in their job can act in a partisan fashion, so you have to go with the retirees.

And more truth is leaking out of Iraq. I would never suggest that all military members feel this way, but don't kid yourself that the war is going well. As Phillip K. **** said, " Reallity is that which doesn't go away when you choose to ignore it."

You know, I really like that quote, but I think you should read it yourself for once

From Washington Post:

washingtonpost.com
For Marines, a Frustrating Fight
Some in Iraq Question How and Why War Is Being Waged

By Steve Fainaru
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page A01

ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq -- Scrawled on the helmet of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon and western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said Perez, 20.

Now, two months into a seven-month combat tour in Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the events of Sept. 11 and the war he is fighting. Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by a conflict whose origins remain unclear and frustrated by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly faceless enemy.

"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here," Perez said. "First of all, you cannot engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here."

Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many areas of the country.

Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records. Four have been killed, two in combat.

Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness of armor -- bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees -- in the face of persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times, insurgents tried to hit the base and missed.
Realities on the Ground

Several members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States and the reality of their daily lives.

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."

Maio said that when he arrived in Iraq, "I didn't think I was going to live this long, in all honesty." He added, "it ain't that bad. It's just part of the job, I guess."

As a reporter began to ask Maio another question, the interview was interrupted by the scream of an incoming rocket and then a deafening explosion outside the platoon's barracks. Pandemonium ensued.

"Get down! Get down!" yelled the platoon's radio operator, Cpl. Brandon Autin, 21, of New Iberia, La., his orders laced with profanity. "Get in the bunker! Get in the bunker now!"

Members of the platoon raced out of their rooms to a 5-by-15-foot bunker, located outside at the end of the one-story building. The dirt-floor room was protected by a low ceiling and walls built out of four-foot-thick sandbags. Once in the bunker, several Marines lit cigarettes, filling the already-congested room with smoke.

"The reality right now is that the most dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong," he said. "We're catching them in a lie."

Senior officers said they shared many of the platoon's frustrations but added that it was difficult for low-level Marines to see the larger progress being made across Iraq. Maj. Douglas Bell, the battalion's executive officer, said "one of the most difficult things about the insurgency is identifying the enemy."

Bell said it was frustrating for "every Marine in the battalion" to search for insurgents on a daily basis, only to be attacked repeatedly with bombs and mortars detonated or launched by an invisible enemy. "You want to get your hand around his frigging collar and kick his ass," Bell said. "But they slip away."

Bell said Marines offering dire predictions for Iraq were not taking into account the training of the new Iraqi security forces. He said the installation of the new Iraqi army, Iraqi National Guard and police across the country would lay the foundation for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"That's how we're going to get out of Iraq," Bell said. "That's how America is going to get out of Iraq."

The Marines acknowledged that the elusiveness of the insurgents was frustrating. "You don't really know who you're fighting. You're more or less fighting objects," said Elston, the lance corporal from New Jersey. "You see something on the side of the road. It blows up."

But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere near ready and may never be.

"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."
The Price of Precaution

The Marines also expressed frustration that they were unable to fight more aggressively because of restraints in the rules of engagement imposed by senior commanders.

The rules, which require Marines to positively identify their target as hostile before shooting, are cumbersome in the face of urban guerrilla warfare, several of them said.

"When we get called out, we'll sit there staging there for an hour," Maio said. "By the time we're ready to move, they're up and gone. A few weeks ago, the Iskandariyah police station was under attack. We staged for damn near an hour before we went out. It's stupid. You have to wait to get approval and all this other stuff."

Kelly, the lance corporal from Alaska, said he understood the need to protect civilians but that the restraints were jeopardizing American lives. "It seems as if they place more value on obeying the letter of the law and sacrificing our lives than following the spirit of the law and getting the job done," he said of his commanders.

Bell said the Marines' frustration was understandable but that it was extremely difficult to make a determination of hostile intent following a roadside bombing that might have been detonated by anything from a remote-controlled toy car to a cell phone. "That's a pretty difficult decision to make for a 19-year-old kid," he said.

Lance Cpl. Jeremy Kyrk, 21, of Chicago, said the insurgents took advantage of the limitations imposed on U.S. troops. "They don't give us any leeway, they don't give us any quarter," he said. "They catch people and cut their heads off. They know our limits, but they have no limits. We can't compete with that."
A Decision to Serve

Perez said the frustrations inherent in the war became apparent almost immediately after he arrived in Iraq in late July. A Colombian immigrant, he said he decided to join the Marine Corps after attending the funeral of a friend who had died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The friend, Thomas Hetzel, was a volunteer firefighter at the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department on Long Island, where Perez also volunteered.

At the time, Perez was studying criminal justice at Nassau Community College. "While I was at the funeral I was looking at his little daughter cry," he said. "He had a pregnant wife and two kids. I just said, 'All right, this is what I want to do.' "

But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."

Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war and all the Sept. 11 stuff, but it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."

Perez said he thought that in some ways he was still fighting terrorists "and I can see how they might attack the United States in the future. It's a link, but it's not really based in the same thing."

Perez added that he now believes the primary reason for the U.S. presence is to help the Iraqis. "But they don't seem like they want to be helped," he said. "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."
Questioning Orders

The frustration of the Marines was evident one afternoon last week as members of the platoon traveled from Forward Operating Base Kalsu back to Camp Iskandariyah. An attack had reportedly taken place in the area, and members of the platoon were asked to leave their Humvees and walk up a road to look for suspicious activity.

Traffic quickly began to pile up: cars packed with families, trucks loaded with animals and vegetables. The line of vehicles would have taken hours to search. An order was suddenly passed for the Marines to search all buses for insurgents or weapons.

"This is what we call a dog-and-pony show," said Kelly, the heavyset, sharp-tongued lance corporal from Fairbanks. He said the operation was essentially a performance for American reporters who were traveling with the Marines. "This is so you can write in your paper how great our response is," he said.

Combs and another Marine boarded a small bus packed mostly with women and children. He walked up the center aisle carrying his M-16 assault rifle, then got off, disgusted.

"We just scared the living [expletive] out of a bunch of people," he said. "That's all we did."

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"

This we can go over a million times. Some hate the way things are going, some love it. Last poll I saw (which I linked to in another discusssin we had) showed that military support of bush was at about 73% to Kerry's 18%, that's a 4 to 1 ratio. So, if Bush was SO BAD, wouldn't that support drop? Or are you saying are military people are idiots who just act like programmed cyborgs??? "must support current commander in chief..uuhhhgghghghgh" (*image the zombie like voice*)

[INFOHAZARD]

I won't quote due to the length, but:

1) You keep ignoring the fact that they did not listen to Shinseki, and we are (arguably) a thousand soldiers deader (and counting) for that snub.

2) Franks is gunning for a cabinet position should Bush get elected- perhaps Powell's or possibly even Rumsfeld's. That's just my opinion, but time may tell.

3) While I'm not going to look it up, I'm sure that among the officers (ie, non-drafted) in Viet Nam, you would have seen similar approval ratings for Johnson right up to the moment he got wise enough not to run again. If you want to argue that Viet Nam was a pretty good idea, don't bother arguing it with me.

The ratings are due to a selection bias (Active Duty are self-selecting, on the whole to be conservative and hawkish) among other things, but the word I've been hearing from the officers who have been over there is that while they are clearly know who the enemy is (well, in principle anyway if not on a crowded street), they are getting angrier and angrier at the command structure. Not to Viet Nam proportions (yet), but it's there. If you want to find out more, check out hackworth.com. He is a soldier's soldier, and he tells it like it is, including the bullshit and mistreatment from the comand.

Mind you I'm a former Field Grade Air Force Officer myself. I got hostile fire pay for 3 years in the Middle East (Incirlik AB, Turkey) . I seen the military do amazing and noble things and I seen it screw-up bad.

I'm treating the nightmares of returning soldiers now about fire fights and car-bomb explosions. I have to let them know that those nightmares may be their most loyal companions for some time to come, based on the Normandy Invasion Vets I care for and the dozens and dozens of Viet Nam Vets.

I keep in active touch with people in the State Department and with other members of the government who would have a reason to know these things. Some of them do reflect your perspective, but their ranks are thinning (due to a chinge of mind, not death, fortunately). I'm sure the poll you cite is accurate wthin its perameters, I'm just telling you what I'm hearing among the people I know.

You a veteran?

But, like I've said a number of times, time will tell. Neither you nor I will.

INFOHAZARD

[Matthew D]

good post IH...

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

I won't quote due to the length, but:

1) You keep ignoring the fact that they did not listen to Shinseki, and we are (arguably) a thousand soldiers deader (and counting) for that snub.

This is an argument made in hindsight! That's why it's a pointless argument! You say "theoretically" we would be better off had we listened to "your general" and I say, maybe, but we'll never find out. Chances are with the way our soldiers are being targeted and hated "for their numbers" we'd have "more dead" IMHO. I.E. Look at what happened in Afganistan w/ our 10,000 soldiers vs. what happened with Russia's 100,000 soldiers. Now, you're operating off of this "more soldiers on the ground is better" attitude, technology is proving that theory "incorrect!" But, in theory, he could be correct, but we will never know!!

2) Franks is gunning for a cabinet position should Bush get elected- perhaps Powell's or possibly even Rumsfeld's. That's just my opinion, but time may tell.

Very possibly, BUT he could just as well gun for a cabinet position under Kerry, could he not???? Now, also, if Franks came out in support of Kerry over Bush that would be absolutely devestating, IMHO, and would be the death of Bush's admin. Bush didn't put a gun to his head and make him support Bush, he had two choices, Kerry or Bush, he chose Bush! In the time he came out in support of Bush Kerry was ahead in the horse race by 6-8 points!! Franks would have made Kerry's election a near certainty. You're igoring the fact that people make their own decisions and have their own minds, you've created this false perception that all of these people in the military and all of Bush's supporters are mindless drones (a traditionally leftist thought) and you've justified that position by their support for Bush.

3) While I'm not going to look it up, I'm sure that among the officers (ie, non-drafted) in Viet Nam, you would have seen similar approval ratings for Johnson right up to the moment he got wise enough not to run again. If you want to argue that Viet Nam was a pretty good idea, don't bother arguing it with me.

I'm not going to justify or tear down the war in Vietnam. I know very little on the subject. All I know is that too many people died and there were too much politics involved in the war, which kept our military from running right through that country. From what I do know, however, the war should not have taken place, especially given the political climate of the time when people were trying to rationalize communism in the state themselves! (Once again, Hollywood was at the forefront of it all, too!)

The ratings are due to a selection bias (Active Duty are self-selecting, on the whole to be conservative and hawkish)

OF COURSE THEY ARE! Should people not have the right to decide whether their ideology is inherently conservative or liberal??? WFT kind of argument was that?

among other things, but the word I've been hearing from the officers who have been over there is that while they are clearly know who the enemy is (well, in principle anyway if not on a crowded street), they are getting angrier and angrier at the command structure. Not to Viet Nam proportions (yet), but it's there. If you want to find out more, check out hackworth.com. He is a soldier's soldier, and he tells it like it is, including the bullshit and mistreatment from the comand.

Don't try to turn this thing into a popularity contest b/c Bush will win this any day. Just b/c "Hackworth" says so does not make it so. This is what I don't get...how can people say "Persons a, ..., z are all wrong because person a1 says so". Another completely ridiculous argument.

Mind you I'm a former Field Grade Air Force Officer myself. I got hostile fire pay for 3 years in the Middle East (Incirlik AB, Turkey) . I seen the military do amazing and noble things and I seen it screw-up bad.

Thanks for your service, but that doesn't make you more correct that I in your political opinions, does it?

I'm treating the nightmares of returning soldiers now about fire fights and car-bomb explosions. I have to let them know that those nightmares may be their most loyal companions for some time to come, based on the Normandy Invasion Vets I care for and the dozens and dozens of Viet Nam Vets.

Noble work, and I feel sorry for those returning soldiers...but I don't see the relevance other than you saying "I do this and I do that, so believe me when I say this!!".

I keep in active touch with people in the State Department and with other members of the government who would have a reason to know these things. Some of them do reflect your perspective, but their ranks are thinning (due to a chinge of mind, not death, fortunately). I'm sure the poll you cite is accurate wthin its perameters, I'm just telling you what I'm hearing among the people I know.

That's great But people tend to surround themselves with similar people, ideology included. Some change their mind for, some change their mind against...

You a veteran?

Nope, I'm not...what does that have to do with anything? I've got family members who served in Vietnam, I've got family who've served in the middle east, and I've got family who served in WWI, WWII...most of them are conservative, but not all...people are all entitled to their opinions. Just because you're a vet, doesn't mean that I should take your political word for anything more than words to be agreed with, disagreed with, disputed, or learned from. So far, I've noticed I've done more of some than the others....

You're a veteran, I'm a genius.... what's the big deal? Mine doesn't make me correct & neither does yours!!

But, like I've said a number of times, time will tell. Neither you nor I will.

INFOHAZARD

We can agree on that one. I'm not some die hard republican, so don't confuse me for one. I'm socially very liberal, fiscally very conservative, and I don't like to take anybody's word. I like to look things up for myself. But, I guess it's hard to be objective about ones self isn't it? I'm a libertarian who happens to believe that our non-intervnetionism policy that is part of our constitution must evolve because this isn't the same world that existed 250 years ago. We can be targeted from across the globe these days and in an instant millions of lives can be lost! I just happen to agree with this president's vision (**** the WMD's I've been saying that since we went in) of peace in the middle east coming through democracy. If Iraq goes democratic, there's a great chance Iran will, too. I disagree with Badnarick's ignorant view that these Islamofacists hate us because of our foreign policy; that's much too howard dean of a position for me. What do they expect, we just let them bomb the hell out of the israelis???? Is that good foreign policy, is that very humanitarian? For a short while, my college time had me turned against the Jews "until I educated myself". The jews are just not going to rollover and die, that's all. The day after they were declared a state 4 (or 5?) arab nations invaded them! What did they do? "Oh those damn zionists!!" **** that...IMHO, I see this war as something to the extent of chest pains. You can chose to ignore it and say "hey if I don't aggrevate it, it'll go away" or you can go out and take care of it! One way may kill you, the ther way you've got a much better chance.

[INFOHAZARD]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

This is an argument made in hindsight! That's why it's a pointless argument!

I made it before the invasion as well. So did a lot of other people. I didn't say "theoretically." I said "arguably," which completely changes the meaning. Reasonable people can argue the numbers of deaths differentially. No one with a brain will argue that there would be a large differential.

And it's not pointless; Bush and his neocons trashed conventional wisdom (i.e. lessons from history) to do it their way and they screwed the pooch. The military had developed plans for all the contingencies that came up and the neocons just trashed them.

That also includes trashing the extremely successful "Powell Docterne." There was I time I would have voted Powell for President. I was warned (by an Army Officer) that he was a political whore back in the '90's....
...

I.E. Look at what happened in Afganistan w/ our 10,000 soldiers vs. what happened with Russia's 100,000 soldiers. Now, you're operating off of this "more soldiers on the ground is better" attitude, technology is proving that theory "incorrect!" ...

What the USSR was doing there was very different from what we were doing there, and their priorities are/were somewhat foreign to us.

Believe this or don't. I know it goes against the traditionally told hisory in the west. The person who told me knows a hell of a lot more about the Soviet Union and Afghanistan than you or I ever will:

Once in there, the Soviets quickly retreated from the idea of having a peaceful puppet state to going in there to exploit specific natural resources (USSR was resource rich, but they lacked certain rather mundane things- I'm not sure, stuff for making cement or the like).

As long as they were able to extract the resources, they could give a **** about 30,000 KIA's over 10 years or what ever it was.

Pay no attention to the stories, Afghani fighters simply suck. The Afghani's did NOT kick the Soviet's ass. The Soviets pulled out because they were starting to implode at home, and had to regroup.

I just see it as apples and oranges, comparing us to the Rooskies in Afghanistan.

Very possibly, BUT he could just as well gun for a cabinet position under Kerry, could he not????

Of course he naturally leans towards Bush's ideology. I never meant to imply otherwise. But to get into a cabinet position, he has to kiss ass; those are the rules inside the Beltway.

I would never mean to suggest that things are simply due to one cause.

Just b/c "Hackworth" says so does not make it so.

You clearly have not yet actually given the site a good look over. Yes he has one perspective, and not a total lock on the truth. You seem to be dismissing it out of hand without looking at it.

I'm sure you'll report back next post how you looked it over and then you'll reject it, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

This is what I don't get...how can people say "Persons a, ..., z are all wrong because person a1 says so". Another completely ridiculous argument.

I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm saying that Hack, Zinni, Kwaiatkowski the WSJ reporter talking about Iraq, the soldiers in the Wash. Post article or even myself have a lock on the truth. I want to make it clear that I with to make no such claims.

What I don't understand is why people are such rabid supporters of a man who cannot admit any mistake. The only mistake Bush made was choosing "certain people" for official positions. Hell, that suggests it was really their shortcomings, not his. His only mistake was to trust them. I hear that jive from criminals; everything is always someone else's fault.

Thanks for your service, but that doesn't make you more correct that I in your political opinions, does it?
Noble work, and I feel sorry for those returning soldiers...but I don't see the relevance other than you saying "I do this and I do that, so believe me when I say this!!".

You may give it whatever weight you see fit. You don't know me from Adam. I appreciate your not suggesting that I am blowing smoke up your ass on that. (I know, it's not too late.)

That's great But people tend to surround themselves with similar people, ideology included. Some change their mind for, some change their mind against...

Yep, line officers will have a slightly different viewpoint than medical officers.

Nope, I'm not [a veteran]...what does that have to do with anything? You're a veteran, I'm a genius.... what's the big deal?

Damn, I could be a wealthy man if only I could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth.

Among many factors, I have found that experiene does count for something. I have learned an immense amount from those who have actually done something in this life. A lot more than from those who have declared themselves geniuses.

One caveat, however. If you graph enthusiasm/energy against judgment you get 4 quadrants.

(Assume/ approximate that Energy/enthusiasm eventually tends to lead to high experience.)

High energy/good judgment is what leaders look for.

The most dangerous of all, however is high energy/bad jugement. Those folks are out there and I would not pay much attention to their opinions, and in fact would strive to vote them out of office.


Are you Mensa? About 98% of Mensa members (with some notable exceptions) are underachieving losers. If you want to be a member of something, try Phi Beta Kappa. That actually says something about someone.

We can agree on that one. I'm not some die hard republican, so don't confuse me for one. I'm socially very liberal, fiscally very conservative, and I don't like to take anybody's word.

I am not some die-hard Liberal. I'm also socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But that leads me to the question ofr what you think about Bush is fiscally conservative (a la balanced budgets and actually conserving something) and what about him is socially liberal? As I recall it was Clinton who finally stopped subsidizing bastard children. You really have me stumped there.

I'm a libertarian who happens to believe that our non-intervnetionism policy that is part of our constitution must evolve because this isn't the same world that existed 250 years ago. We can be targeted from across the globe these days and in an instant millions of lives can be lost!

Have you read the Federalist Papers? I'd recommend it when speaking about the intent of the founding fathers. Hell, our own capital was occupied and burned in 1812.

More to the intervention issue, some things have changed, but the ethics of it is timeless.

Based on "Project for the New American Century" (check out their website) docterne from at least 1998, the people in this administration have seen invading Iraq as a solution to all problems in the Middle East. THis had nothing to do with 9/11.

Add to this corroboration by Richard Clarke, Paul O'Niell, Karen Kwaitkowski, Ray McGovern and others, Bush was looking for a reason to invade Iraq before 9/11. It isn't just that there are people saying it, it pays to note who is saying it. All these people have bona fides
and were high level insiders until they spoke up in disagreement. Most of them were punished for the the fact that they "didn't get it."


There were reports by Colon Powell and Condi Rice (caught on film) in early 2001 stating that Saddam was no threat. Suddently everything changes, including the intel in order to facilitate an invasion, and now it turns out everything is as it originally seemed to be after all.

Know an idealogue when you see one. They have a nasty habit of not being able to admit a mistake.

...IMHO, I see this war as something to the extent of chest pains. You can chose to ignore it and say "hey if I don't aggrevate it, it'll go away" or you can go out and take care of it! One way may kill you, the ther way you've got a much better chance.

Everyone agrees there is a threat to our well-being. You just have to be sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. This intervention is high enthusiasm, poor judgment. Oops, the chest pain was actually a liver abcess, not a heart attack.

We are in a hell of a mess, and we have overextended ourselves badly while much more dangerous enemies (not just Al Qeda) are flanking us because we don't have the military force available to project at them.

Most of the rest of the world is pissed off enough to sit back and let us get what's coming.

BTW: I for one see Israel as an 'interest,' not a friend. That's how they view us.

INFOHAZARD

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events." Sir Winston Churchill

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by INFOHAZARD

I made it before the invasion as well. So did a lot of other people. I didn't say "theoretically." I said "arguably," which completely changes the meaning. Reasonable people can argue the numbers of deaths differentially. No one with a brain will argue that there would be a large differential.

Your "theory" was not tested and therefore is not proven, so it remains a theory. As I said, it could be correct...

And it's not pointless; Bush and his neocons trashed conventional wisdom (i.e. lessons from history) to do it their way and they screwed the pooch. The military had developed plans for all the contingencies that came up and the neocons just trashed them.

Trashed conventional wisdom? You mean the same kind of traditional wisdeom we used w/ Nazi Germany and Imperialistic Japan, right? That wasn't wisdom...We sat back and watched Hitler grow a huge army, take over many lands, and waited for Japan to kill 3,000 of our people. Then we had to sacrifice 100,000's more of our peopel because we didn't take out a threat when we saw it. We tried to appease it and let the pussy europeans lead the way.

That also includes trashing the extremely successful "Powell Docterne." There was I time I would have voted Powell for President. I was warned (by an Army Officer) that he was a political whore back in the '90's....
...

That's great; he says he's a whore, I have respect for Powell. Difference of opinion.

What the USSR was doing there was very different from what we were doing there, and their priorities are/were somewhat foreign to us.

Believe this or don't. I know it goes against the traditionally told hisory in the west. The person who told me knows a hell of a lot more about the Soviet Union and Afghanistan than you or I ever will:

Once in there, the Soviets quickly retreated from the idea of having a peaceful puppet state to going in there to exploit specific natural resources (USSR was resource rich, but they lacked certain rather mundane things- I'm not sure, stuff for making cement or the like).

As long as they were able to extract the resources, they could give a **** about 30,000 KIA's over 10 years or what ever it was.

Pay no attention to the stories, Afghani fighters simply suck. The Afghani's did NOT kick the Soviet's ass. The Soviets pulled out because they were starting to implode at home, and had to regroup.

Well, based on the "don't pay attention to the stories" argument, directly following a "didnt' listen to conventional wisdom" argument, I'll say you choose to believe things in a rather selective manner and not quite as objectively.

I just see it as apples and oranges, comparing us to the Rooskies in Afghanistan.

It is, but my point was their 100K troops didn't ruin the hell out of the weak little Afghani army. Tora Bora had something to do with it and the horrendous terrain there, but whatever floats your boat.

Of course he naturally leans towards Bush's ideology. I never meant to imply otherwise. But to get into a cabinet position, he has to kiss ass; those are the rules inside the Beltway.

What about the Kerry supporters, could I not say the same thing about them? Your just making assupmtions. Franks has made no indication that he is going to run for office of any sort (he may do so though), so your guys are just as much ass kissers. Again, you pick and choose when to accept things. How logical is it to say "Franks is doing this b/c I think he wants to run for office, but Shinseki, he's sincere!" without any sort of statement or evicence to support your theory.

Quo