Re: News Release

"Rod Engelsman" <rod.engelsman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qsz0g.43$gn.93276@news.sisna.com...
> Cliff wrote:
>
>>>> Tactically speaking the management of the war has been exceptional.
>>> We have the Generals to thank for that. And quite a few retired Generals
>>> with decades of experience are calling for his resignation.
>>
>> Yes, 6 out of some 6000. The old guard, the cold warriors. They never
>> liked Rumsfeld to begin with.
>>
>
> And you know this how...?

Many many reports.
Any of the older generals that were considered "the cold warrior" have a
different mindset than Rumsfeld. they have fought with him all the way.
Rumsfeld believes in a light, fast army with good use of special forces
instead of battalions fighting it out in open warfare. The "old guard"
believes in a massive miltary and overwhelming superiority of numbers which
just does not fit into todays scenarios.

>> an that lead the military in a campaign that took Iraq with
>>>> very little loss of life on both sides. A very successful milary
>>>> campaign that will be studied by the war colleges for years to come.
>>> We beat a decimated and demoralized Iraqi army in a straight-ahead
>>> shooting war. Big surprise. It would have been incredibly embarrassing
>>> had we not done so.
>>
>> It could have been a lot worse. The predictions before the war were
>> overstated but the facts remain we did an exceptional job.
>
> In war you may hope for the best but you *must* prepare for the worst. The
> invasion was brilliant, the occupation has been dismal.
>
>>
>> g for the occupation is what was very poor. The neo-cons have
>>> some real blind-spots caused by their almost religious sense of
>>> self-righteousness. The plain fact is that we never had enough boots on
>>> the ground to defend the country from itself once we toppled the regime.
>>> The result is that three years later the state of the infrastructure is
>>> still atrocious. Things like electricity, water, and sewage. The good
>>> old boy contractors are spending twice as much as they planned to
>>> accomplish half of what they promised and the main reason is that they
>>> are spending up to 60% of their money on security.
>>
>> Yeah, too bad we can't read the future, then we wouldn't have people like
>> you with 20-20 hindsite picking apart mistakes that would have been hard
>> to avoid anyway.
>
> Many, many, people predicted a lot of this ahead of time, but the BA chose
> to ignore them for ideological and political reasons.

Many many predicted means little if those people were not in the position to
know. I still think that we would not be much better off with a million more
troops.
>
>
>>>>
>>> I find it interesting that not one single officer has yet to be
>>> punished. It's all low-level grunts. Shit rolls downhill apparently.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that they were complicit in torture? Or is this just
>> another reason you are using to beat up on someone who has done a good
>> job that you just don't agree with?
>
> I served in the Navy for 9 years so I know a bit about how this is
> supposed to work.

Oh boy another navy vet.......one thing you find out about navy vets is that
most of them are full of shit :) I bet you were a chief to boot....the worst
of the worst :)

> It's 3 am and the Captain is in his bunk. The ship hits an obstacle. Guess
> who gets the ultimate responsibility and pays for the mistake.

Seeing how the captain is a commissioned officer in charge of a ship he
would take the blame. But in the same respect did the captain of the ship
that the two sailors were on that raped the two Guamanian girls a while back
take any blame for their rape? Not one bit. He was not complicit in their
rape. Same goes for those in charge of the soldiers at abu gharaib......
Received on Mon May 1 01:07:41 2006