"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:51:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.


So, when a President asks for an honest assessment of a military
situation,
the general should lie? I believe that a general has already had a "long
career" in the military, and he or she should be valued for his/her honest
opinion.

Giving an assessment is not the same thing as offering an opinion.

So, when a general goes before Congress and is asked a direct military
question and gives his honest answer, he should be forced out? That's what
Bush did.

An assessment is a highly structured process based on underlying
factual data and probability analysis.


Nice word parse, but the fact is that the military opinion is what we're
talking about.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Do you deny that they are controlled by politicians? If we are in
Afghanistan
another ten years, it will be because Presidents wanted us there.
--

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked.


Generals do not get their stars by saying "That's too hard", they get
them by saying "Can do sir"

In any case, they've already gotten their "stars." So, when asked for a
military opinion, it seems to me they've earned the right to be honest.

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote:
...it is out to **** us all...forever...

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the
United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict
in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for nine
years.

- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply
to one of your posts.

Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid,
****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue
about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're
wrong. It was.

Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama
could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year
ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there.

General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to
accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to
accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any
idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up
there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it.

Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get
off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that
'wouldn't work' but did?

OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid
again.


Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to one of
my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville.

The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay in
uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to keep
themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should the amount
of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex.

The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war and
the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a lesser
degree, George H.W. Bush.

There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks
otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was.

The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart
once we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger with
close ties to some ayatollah.

The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it didn't,
half of its officers would be mustered out to become substitute teachers.




Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that
Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become
subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the other
way around.

Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander
in Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders.

In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his military
advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame.

This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is
unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good
speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities.

GTMO is still operating.

And, Republicans have blocked moves to allocate funding to getting it
closed, and they're blocking moves to transfer the detainees to federal
facilities here.

A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed.

Untrue. It staved off a depression.

We are still in Iraq.

And, the troop numbers are dropping.

We are escalating in Afghanistan.

Yes, but they'll be drawn down in the next year or so, as per policy and
agreement with the Afg. admin.

I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you?

Yes, but I can't help what other people refuse to see.

On 7/12/10 1:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


"Harry " wrote in message
m...
On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote:
...it is out to **** us all...forever...

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the
United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict
in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for
nine years.

- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply
to one of your posts.

Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid,
****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue
about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're
wrong. It was.

Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama
could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year
ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there.

General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to
accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to
accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any
idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up
there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it.

Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get
off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that
'wouldn't work' but did?

OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid
again.


Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to
one of my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville.

The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay
in uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to
keep themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should
the amount of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex.

The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war
and the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a
lesser degree, George H.W. Bush.

There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks
otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was.

The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart
once we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger
with close ties to some ayatollah.

The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it
didn't, half of its officers would be mustered out to become
substitute teachers.




Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that
Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become
subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the
other way around.

Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander
in Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders.

In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his
military advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame.

This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is
unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good
speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities.

GTMO is still operating.

And, Republicans have blocked moves to allocate funding to getting it
closed, and they're blocking moves to transfer the detainees to federal
facilities here.

A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed.

Untrue. It staved off a depression.

We are still in Iraq.

And, the troop numbers are dropping.

We are escalating in Afghanistan.

Yes, but they'll be drawn down in the next year or so, as per policy and
agreement with the Afg. admin.

I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you?

Yes, but I can't help what other people refuse to see.




"Charles" is just another of the demented right-wing assholes here. I
don't read his posts...I think I fill my obligatory quota of reading the
posts of right-wing morons with the posts I do read. I mean, if you look
at a few posts from Scotty Tosk, "Larry," "E-Jack-Ulate, flajim, et
cetera, you're sort of off the hook for looking at more.

There are a few of these fellows here like "Charles" ...there's more
intelligence and thought in a fart than in any of their posts, so...why
bother even opening them?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:57:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In any case, they've already gotten their "stars." So, when asked for a
military opinion, it seems to me they've earned the right to be honest.

Once, and only once.

On 7/12/10 2:28 PM, wrote:
You don't impeach a president without a significant number of
the American public supporting the measure in the house.


I disagree. The GOP House members were beside themselves in their
efforts to bring down Clinton. They hated him, they hated the fact that
he won his first election, and they thought that like Hitler, their
party would have a Thousand Year Reign.

In article ,
says...

On 7/12/10 1:59 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Charles C." wrote in message
...


"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/11/10 8:46 AM, John H wrote:
On Jul 10, 7:52 pm, Harry wrote:
...it is out to **** us all...forever...

General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said today the
United States could face another "decade or so" of persistent conflict
in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In two months, the U.S. will have been at war in Afghanistan for
nine years.

- - -

These whores will do anything to stay in uniform.

Harry, it's not August yet, but I'm going to give you an early reply
to one of your posts.

Your comment about General Casey's remarks was about the most stupid,
****ing thing you've said in years. Now I know some folks will argue
about it was *really* the *most* stupid thing you've said, but they're
wrong. It was.

Generals do not keep wars going. Politicians keep wars going. Obama
could have had us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan well over a year
ago. *Obama* is making the choice of keeping us there.

General Casey is noting that it could take another decade or so to
accomplish what the friggin' politician, to wit: Obama, wants to
accomplish. Since Obama has his head up his ass and doesn't have any
idea of his goals over there, your grandchildren could well end up
there. If things change in your family, you might even hear about it.

Pray for a Republican president. She'll probably either **** or get
off the pot with regard to Afghanistan. Remember the Iraq surge that
'wouldn't work' but did?

OK, see you again in September...unless you do some *really* stupid
again.


Wow...herring thinks I give a damn whether he responds directly to
one of my posts. That's some ego working over there in herringville.

The posit is that the "officer corps" will do anything it can to stay
in uniform, including prolonging war. Without a heavy-duty war to
keep themselves busy, the officer corps will shrink, and so should
the amount of dollars wasted on the "military-industrial" complex.

The last presidents we had who knew anything real about "modern" war
and the military from the highest levels were Eisenhower and to a
lesser degree, George H.W. Bush.

There is nothing worth accomplishing in Afghanistan. If Obama thinks
otherwise, it is because his "military advisers" told him there was.

The Iraqi surge merely postponed the inevitable. Iraq will fall apart
once we pull out. Either that, or it will be ruled by a right-winger
with close ties to some ayatollah.

The military establishment will **** us over every time. If it
didn't, half of its officers would be mustered out to become
substitute teachers.




Didn't think it was possible but you did it. You just admitted that
Obama, with no military experience and little knowledge, has become
subservient to the military and it's advisors. Supposed to be the
other way around.

Military leadership reports the facts as they see them. The Commander
in Chief is ultimately responsible for policy and giving the orders.

In your eyes (and words) it's not Obama's fault. Now it's "his
military advisors" who are shaping policy and are to blame.

This country is in a leadership crisis right now, a quality Obama is
unfortunately demonstrating a lack of. Nice guy and all, gives good
speeches, etc., but little to offer in true leadership qualities.

GTMO is still operating.

And, Republicans have blocked moves to allocate funding to getting it
closed, and they're blocking moves to transfer the detainees to federal
facilities here.

A trillion dollar economic stimulus program has failed.

Untrue. It staved off a depression.

We are still in Iraq.

And, the troop numbers are dropping.

We are escalating in Afghanistan.

Yes, but they'll be drawn down in the next year or so, as per policy and
agreement with the Afg. admin.

I really haven't noticed any "change". Have you?

Yes, but I can't help what other people refuse to see.




"Charles" is just another of the demented right-wing assholes here. I
don't read his posts...I think I fill my obligatory quota of reading the
posts of right-wing morons with the posts I do read. I mean, if you look
at a few posts from Scotty Tosk, "Larry," "E-Jack-Ulate, flajim, et
cetera, you're sort of off the hook for looking at more.

There are a few of these fellows here like "Charles" ...there's more
intelligence and thought in a fart than in any of their posts, so...why
bother even opening them?

Spoofer alert! I'm much too sophisticated to write that sort of garbage.

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:07:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:00:54 -0400, John H
wrote:

Did you ever see the movie "The battle of the Bulge"?
Watch the Robert Ryan monologue at the end of the movie where he says
he will do anything to keep wearing that uniform and waging war.
I see the same thing in our military policy.

No one would deny that the job of Generals is to fight wars.

Do you deny that they are controlled by politicians? If we are in Afghanistan
another ten years, it will be because Presidents wanted us there.
--

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

You bypassed the fact that politicians determine the length of wars, not
generals.
--

I hope your day is simply *SPECTACULAR* !!

John H

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 22:17:44 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:17:58 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

With all du respect, you won't find many generals who will say "we
can't win" no matter how hopeless the mission is and they have no
authority to question the objective of the mission.

Seems to me that they would give honest opinions if asked.

Giving honest opinions is not conducive to a long career in the
military.

That really depends on the integrity of the one to whom the opinion is offerred.
If he/she is the type that can take only good news, then your opinion is
correct.
--

I hope your day is simply *SPECTACULAR* !!

John H

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:45:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:12:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

which distinguishes him from, say, George W. Bush, who was a divider.

Actually Clinton was the divider. The last president to **** off that
many people was Andrew Johnson. Bush just drove the wedge in a little
deeper on your side.

Really? So at the end of Clinton's presidency, you're going to claim
that
the US was ridiculed and thought little of worldwide compared to when
Bush
was IN office?


You have to say the US was about as divided as it could get during the
Clinton administration. They impeached him and at least 40% of the
country thought that was the right thing to do. The vote was 45-55 in
the senate. That is "divided" no matter how you measure it.
There were plenty of Europeans who thought our Iraq policy was wrong.
It was really just us and the Brits.

At least 60% of the people thought it was a right-wing stunt. That's a
majority, btw. The country is ALWAYS divided, but compared to now? Come
on.


A lot of people didn't "like" Reagan or Carter but we didn't have
outright hatred.
I am saying that Clinton was the start of the great divide we see now.
You just don't see it because you were not the "out" party at the
time. You don't impeach a president without a significant number of
the American public supporting the measure in the house.

When Chris Mathews invented the Red Blue thing the division just got a
name and the unity of the country went down hill from there.

That's quite a different statement from what you said originally. Sure,
Clinton inspired people to hate. Are you blaming him for it? Seems to me
that the people doing the hating are the ones with the problem.

They impeached him because of basically nothing, led by a bunch of
hypocrites with delusions of grandeur. It had nothing to do with popular
opinion. Clinton was highly popular throughout.

Mathews articulated a situation. Obama said it's not true. Listen to his
2004 speech.