What's with all the military types 'speaking out'?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Pekka
My proving languae is not! I'm just tpying fast, it's not luck, I never had really bad English to begin with.

No, it was never "bad" but I seem to be able to get through your posts easier than I once could. You do know you are rather long-winded?

Surely this guy isn't the lone responsible one. But he should act accordingly to his status and let it go, OR admit that he is a failure himself, a real loser and a douche.

You don't see him doing that...

I hear you. I think my point is that they always seem to find someone else responsible when something goes wrong. Finger pointing as a national sport.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: What's with all the military types 'speaking out'?

Originally posted by Lancer
Often times its generals! Where is dicipline? By 'speaking out' they are making the mission that much more difficult.

Do you really believe this? That somehow, someway, all those Iraqi arabs, and non-Iraqi arabs who see this (or at least encourage there followers to see it) as a non-arab invasion of arab lands, and all the Islamic extremists who see this as infidel crusaders against the true believers of Islam, are all just about to quit and pack it in? And all of a sudden, they get their nightly CNN fix and see a retired American general express his views, so it's "Oh, we were about to give up to the evil Zionist Crusader Infidels, but now we must fight on!"

Those mother****ers who are still in the fight have a much higher level of motivation to their religious/tribal/nationalist/pan-arab fight than we do. They ain't quitting, and unless and until the Iraqi so-called government can get its **** together and solve internal problems, the fight will go on.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Wezil
No one is ever responsible for anything wrong in America. This board is proof - When's the last time you saw an American admit they were wrong even when they clearly were? There's another thread on the go here where a good half dozen of them are in denial even after being called on their mistake.

Btw, I think your English writing is improving.

I have, I am not too proud and I do make mistakes.

When convicted, I will come forth.

I am done intentionally hurting people as a full time occupation.

I still on occassion make mistakes by not properly attoning for my mistakes, just dont set out to be in the mode

Gramps

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll




I have, I am not too proud and I do make mistakes.

When convicted, I will come forth.

I am done intentionally hurting people as a full time occupation.

I still on occassion make mistakes by not properly attoning for my mistakes, just dont set out to be in the mode

Gramps

Of course my comments aren't a blanket statement GT.

I too make my fair share of mistakes and then some, but I try to acknowledge them when I know it. I don't see the failure to do so as a virtue.

[Pekka]

I never make mistakes. I mean I do, but not like.. mistake mistakes. I always end up benefiting from "mistakes" so how are they mistakes to begin with? It was meant to be, some inner genius being that is me drove me into that mistake so that I could benefit from it.

If I step on your toes by a mistake, you get angry, I say sorry I didn't mean to do that. But I did mean to do that and now you just have forgiven me so I can benefit from normalized situation - to step on your toes later on again.

[DaShi]

Remind me to never accept an apology from Pekka.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Wezil
No one is ever responsible for anything wrong in America. This board is proof - When's the last time you saw an American admit they were wrong even when they clearly were? There's another thread on the go here where a good half dozen of them are in denial even after being called on their mistake.

That's because there is a big difference between being "wrong" vs making a decision that doesn't turn out the way you hoped.

It was "wrong" for Saddam to use petty economic squabbles as pretext for invading Kuwait to rape and pillage and seize control of their oil fields.

The US invasion isn't comparable, not by a long shot. Even if Bush et al knew how much of their intelligence was erroneous (which they didn't).

It was wrong for Saddam and his sadistic sons to routinely and arbitrarily imprison, rape, torture and execute people.

The worst abuse at Abu Ghraib isn't comparable, not by a long shot.

[SlowwHand]

I'd have to 2nd Straybow, word for word.

Oh, yeah. That could be a QFT.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Wezil
No one is ever responsible for anything wrong in America. This board is proof - When's the last time you saw an American admit they were wrong even when they clearly were? There's another thread on the go here where a good half dozen of them are in denial even after being called on their mistake.

That's because there is a big difference between being "wrong" vs making a decision that doesn't turn out the way you hoped...

I think you miss my point. I wasn't even necessarily talking about Iraq and the surrounding issues.

From the politicians (Rep - "The Dems are to blame"; Dem - "The Reps are to blame") right on down to the citizenry (including some at this site) it seems like it's in the national character/genes/water to never say something like - "I'm sorry. I was wrong". Like it's a sign of weakness or something.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Straybow
[Q] Originally posted by Wezil
The US invasion isn't comparable, not by a long shot. Even if Bush et al knew how much of their intelligence was erroneous (which they didn't).

It is comparable.

The Bush Administration knew that bin Ladin's al Qaeda and Hussain's Baathist Party hated and mistrustred each other. For Bush to claim that the U.S. was under imminent threat of attack by Hussein giving bin Ladin WMD--especially nuclear weapons--was a 100% fabrication.

The U.S. was under no threat of imminent attack, and thus a so-called "pre-emptive war" was not appropriate.

Any claim that we were justified in attacking Iraq because its government was evil cannot be justified. The Treaty of Westphalia -- which ended the 30 Years War -- established the principal that is is illegal for one nation to invade another because of internal politics.

[BTW: This is the SAME justification that bin Ladin used to attack the U.S. He asserts the U.S. is ruled by "evil" men and so it must be forceably converted to Islam. I would hope that the U.S. could act in a manner which is moral superior to that of bin Ladin. ]

[DinoDoc]

Any claim that we were justified in attacking Iraq because its government was evil cannot be justified. The Treaty of Westphalia -- which ended the 30 Years War -- established the principal that is is illegal for one nation to invade another because of internal politics.

*ahem*

[Zkribbler]

To be more precise...the 30 Years War was the last great religious war in Europe. Cardinal Richelieu ended it when he brought Catholic France in on the side of the Protestants in order the break the monopoly of power by the Catholic Hapsburgs. (Thus, wars of nationalism replaced religious wars).

Most of the 30 Years War had been fought in the German states. The treaty that ended the war gave the power to each German prince to determine the religion of his people without outside interference. That provision has since been expanded into a general principal that the internal politics of one state cannot serve as a justification for another state to attack it.

Bush violated this principal when he invaded Iraq and attempted to justify it on the basis of the way Hussain was treating the Iraqi people.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

So you view a war with certain deaths of hundreds (at least) of innocents as

Originally posted by Straybow
a decision that doesn't turn out the way you hoped.

if it was only hundreds of woman and children it would have been OK for you? Or perhaps Saddam was worse than other dictators that US currently finds as acceptable?

Or perhaps it was only really about WOMD and "US Security" in which case

It was "wrong" for Saddam to use petty economic squabbles as pretext for invading Kuwait to rape and pillage and seize control of their oil fields.

The US invasion isn't comparable, not by a long shot. Even if Bush et al knew how much of their intelligence was erroneous (which they didn't).

Did they out Valerie Plame accidentaly, or was it for other reasons than to hide the fact the Nigher Uranium issue was fabricated?

Did Donald Rumsfeld make "war planning" OSP office because the regular services were providing him with the information he needed to justify the war to the public, or was it only because there really was no case so he needed someone "private" without the usual checks and balances to make one?

Did US population by accident believe that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 prior to the invasion?

Did Bush admin rush the war instead of waiting for the weapons inspectors to finish their job, because an Iraqi attack was imminent, or because they knew the weapons inspectors will have nothing to report anyhow so their case for war (if they wait a bit more) will fail?

It was wrong for Saddam and his sadistic sons to routinely and arbitrarily imprison, rape, torture and execute people.

The worst abuse at Abu Ghraib isn't comparable, not by a long shot.

Is it not comparable when you kill thousands, and torture hundreds to what he did, because he did kill tens of thousands and tortured thousands?

What is the count when you start considering one policy worse than the other, perhaps when you stay in Iraq for 20 years as Saddam did you will surpass his numbers (and have some big insurgencies in the middle as he had which will significantly up the amount... think Fallujah (for only the dead all terrorists of course, I mean Kurds were terrorists to Saddam too)... )

Taking this all (and much more) into the account, was it merely a good decision gone bad?Do you really think that the action, was taken as an "imminent, last resort action" given the information they had at hand. Or is it really OK to start a war, hoping for the best, when the war could easily have been avoided in the first place.

Easily avoided? Well if you go from the bottom up... it would have been very easy to wait until the weapons inspectors have finished the inspection, even easier to dispel the lingering doubts in the public mind about Saddams complicity in 9-11, perhaps a bit harder to make OSP part in the war planning fully transprent, but at least reveal to the congress/senate why was the office needed, lastly not to forget letting the Niger claim be re-examined without the attempt to destroy the credibility of the source to see it's validity once again after it has been challenged.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Pekka]You were in charge, you are supposed to shut up and do the job, but that also is what you're supposed to do afterwards.[/q]

BULL****. Generals have as much right to freedom of speech after they leave the job as anyone else. Hell, they have the right during the job, but they may get fired for it .

[DanS]

Re: What's with all the military types 'speaking out'?

Originally posted by Lancer
Often times its generals! Where is dicipline? By 'speaking out' they are making the mission that much more difficult. I though that was the job of the liberal media?

Next thing the top brass will be marching on Washington claiming the presidency, and the secret service will be trying to sell the job to senators. Rome II.

This is an intra-military policy fight. Most generals past and present don't want to fight Iraq like a classic counter-insurgency. However, the general in charge nowadays is Mr. Counterinsurgency and he has the ear of the president. The generals past and present know that their viewpoint isn't holding sway, so they are trying to enlarge the policy battlefield by speaking out in public.

Politicians use this tactic to enlarge the battlefield as well. The pages of the Washington Post are littered with these implied battles. You find in most such cases that this is a last-ditch attempt by folks having a losing viewpoint. Sometimes they are successful in turning the tide of the argument, but most times they are unsuccessful.