Fire the Generals!

[ayabe]

Link

Lou Dobbs doesn't get it - Rummy and his civilian underlings are the ones who "planned" this operation and they call the shots, you can't fault the generals or the troops, gimme a break.

"Both the White House and Congress should be demanding accountability from our generals who have failed so far to succeed in destroying our enemies. Not a single general has been fired for failing to lead our men and women to victory against the insurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe it is time for all Americans -- Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- to demand such accountability."

 

[astrosfan90]

Dobbs is a moron. He bleats because he likes the sound of his own voice, and contrary to the ratings, he thinks that others actually enjoy hearing it too.

 

[Zebo]

Everyone knows how to defeat this enemy that loves death more than we love life we are just unwilling to speak it.

 

[Genx87]

The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

Unfortunately I think that way of war-fighting is long over, never to return. Not with the complete media manipulation that goes on nowadays. The same could be said for Vietnam, only now I think it's much worse. There won't be any more Dresden's, or Nagasaki's, we no longer fight wars to win. Along the lines of what Zebo was saying, we need to take the gloves off and go all out, that's how wars are won, punish these people until they give up or are annihilated, there is no middle ground and they certainly won't grant us any reprieve, ever. If this truly is a war to preserve our civilization as W says, then we need to fight it that way.

McArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese when they came over the border, we should have.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

The world does'nt recognise Islamic Militism as a threat like we did German Nazism or Japanese Kodo, yet. Unfortunatly I think it will take a few nukes detonating in our major cities before that happens... and even then it's questionable considering what passes for the intelligentsia these days continually bleats lies about "religion of peace" and all cultures have equal validity....

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

Unfortunately I think that way of war-fighting is long over, never to return. Not with the complete media manipulation that goes on nowadays. The same could be said for Vietnam, only now I think it's much worse. There won't be any more Dresden's, or Nagasaki's, we longer fight wars to win. Along the lines of what Zebo was saying, we need to take the gloves off and go all out, that's how wars are won, punish these people until they give up or are annihilated, there is no middle ground and they certainly won't grant us any reprieve, ever. If this truly is a war to preserve our civilization as W says, then we need to fight it that way.

McArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese when they came over the border, we should have.

The change started right after WWII by the Truman administration. Korea was the first test of having our military fight with their hands tied. McArthur was correct in his public lambasting of Truman's interference in the war effort in Korea.

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Good intentions with bad consequences.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

Unfortunately I think that way of war-fighting is long over, never to return. Not with the complete media manipulation that goes on nowadays. The same could be said for Vietnam, only now I think it's much worse. There won't be any more Dresden's, or Nagasaki's, we longer fight wars to win. Along the lines of what Zebo was saying, we need to take the gloves off and go all out, that's how wars are won, punish these people until they give up or are annihilated, there is no middle ground and they certainly won't grant us any reprieve, ever. If this truly is a war to preserve our civilization as W says, then we need to fight it that way.

McArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese when they came over the border, we should have.

The change started right after WWII by the Truman administration. Korea was the first test of having our military fight with their hands tied. McArthur was correct in his public lambasting of Truman's interference in the war effort in Korea.

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Good intentions with bad consequences.

one reason I'd never ever join the militray these days. Not only are you subjected to unessesary and foolsish risks by command. Your own GD government will proseute you for fighting properly so you got two enemies you are fighting.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

Unfortunately I think that way of war-fighting is long over, never to return. Not with the complete media manipulation that goes on nowadays. The same could be said for Vietnam, only now I think it's much worse. There won't be any more Dresden's, or Nagasaki's, we longer fight wars to win. Along the lines of what Zebo was saying, we need to take the gloves off and go all out, that's how wars are won, punish these people until they give up or are annihilated, there is no middle ground and they certainly won't grant us any reprieve, ever. If this truly is a war to preserve our civilization as W says, then we need to fight it that way.

McArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese when they came over the border, we should have.

The change started right after WWII by the Truman administration. Korea was the first test of having our military fight with their hands tied. McArthur was correct in his public lambasting of Truman's interference in the war effort in Korea.

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Good intentions with bad consequences.

Yeah that's why I brought it up, Truman is where is started in earnest. But Churchill was furious with FDR for ceding so much to Stalin, so there's some blame to be had there as well. We could have and should have crushed the Russians when we had the upper hand, the world would certainly be a better place now, and just think what our society and the world would be like if all the money we wasted fighting the Cold War could have been spent on other things.

For one thing, we wouldn't have had to side with outright muderous dictators just because they weren't commies, which over the past 60 years has increasingly made us out to be hypocrits to much of the world.

Ahh.....what-if history is so much fun sometimes. :beer:

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Are you serious? The US Army at the end of WWII could not have driven to Moscow. By 1945, the Soviet Army was big and powerful, and drove the Germans back from in front of Moscow all the way to Berlin.

Remember, in Europe, 2/3 of the German Army was fighting the USSR, and only 1/3 was fighting us.

Could we have achieved a limited success and maybe taken back Eastern Germany or other countires, who knows? But invading the USSR would never work.

 

[Genx87]

Ahh.....what-if history is so much fun sometimes.

Indeed, would think we could start learning from it.

Korea - Wash
Vietnam - Lost
Iraq - Losing

Wars that had our military's hand tied, all three were\are unwinnable.

You know in GW1 weallowed our military a few hours to run rampant on retreating Iraqi forces. The result was a media outcry at the carnage they created on the highway of death. We didnt pursue them into Iraq and made peace. The result is watching thousands of Iraqi's die in an uprising we helped create. While prolonging Saddams rule and the death he brought on his own people. And Ironically landed us back there where we are today.

 

[Zebo]

I know many of you on the right dislike Michael Scheuer for his critism of Bush and his tactics but I think the man is a genius ... all should read his book as he's an expert on the ME, it's culture it's religion and warfare... Here's an exchange he has with Bill O.

O'REILLY: I'm bringing it up to be - to show the Islamic world and those Muslims who are watching us right now, the inconsistency of their thought that, if there was a - you know, a God that was actually wanting them to do whatever, how could he possibly want them to...
SCHEUER: No, I don't quite follow it, sir, because I -- as much as I'd like to believe that human life is sacred in all instances, war, whether it's conducted by Americans or by British or by Chinese or by Muslims, war is just war. And it kills innocent people. And that's the way it is.
O'REILLY: But there's a way to wage it. And the way that the al Qaedas are waging it is by killing civilians. They're not waging war in a conventional way, as you know. Now...
SCHEUER: Well, they are waging war in the conventional way that we waged war until 1945, sir, which is the last war we've won. Once we stopped waging war in the American fashion, we haven't won a war since....
O'REILLY: Is there anything we can do to win it?
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. We certainly have to kill more of the enemy. That's the first step.
O'REILLY: Any way we can?
SCHEUER: Anywhere we can, whenever we can, without a great deal of concern for civilian casualties. As I said, war is war. The people who got killed when they were hosting Zawahiri to dinner were not the friends of the United States.
O'REILLY: All right, Mr Scheuer, always a pleasure to talk with you.


You guys remember the street celebrations of Hezbolla and thousands of other examples of "death to america" rallies thoughout the ME? Cluster bombs needed there in real warfare as none are friends of the United States...

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Are you serious? The US Army at the end of WWII could not have driven to Moscow. By 1945, the Soviet Army was big and powerful, and drove the Germans back from in front of Moscow all the way to Berlin.

Remember, in Europe, 2/3 of the German Army was fighting the USSR, and only 1/3 was fighting us.

Could we have achieved a limited success and maybe taken back Eastern Germany or other countires, who knows? But invading the USSR would never work.

I disagree, we were also fighting a war on two fronts and were still helping the Soviets with aid up to the end of the war, we also had a strategic bomber force that they could only dream of, and 6 months afterwards we had the bomb.

Edit: Something else a lot of people don't realize, the Russians got a huge boost from all of the German technology and engineers that they enslaved after the war, most of their aircraft and all of the their missle tech came directly from them for 10-15 years after WWII, without that, they wouldn't have had a chance.

 

[jackschmittusa]

"Drive to Moscow"? Now that is a joke. The country was tired of war in 1945. There were threats of mutiny when troops in the ETO were told they would be moved to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. And we would have been just in time for another Russian winter. Then we would also be trying to occupy another country besides Japan, Germany, etc.. And no money left for a Marshall Plan either. Never would have happened, but a disaster if it had.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

Unfortunately I think that way of war-fighting is long over, never to return. Not with the complete media manipulation that goes on nowadays. The same could be said for Vietnam, only now I think it's much worse. There won't be any more Dresden's, or Nagasaki's, we longer fight wars to win. Along the lines of what Zebo was saying, we need to take the gloves off and go all out, that's how wars are won, punish these people until they give up or are annihilated, there is no middle ground and they certainly won't grant us any reprieve, ever. If this truly is a war to preserve our civilization as W says, then we need to fight it that way.

McArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese when they came over the border, we should have.

The change started right after WWII by the Truman administration. Korea was the first test of having our military fight with their hands tied. McArthur was correct in his public lambasting of Truman's interference in the war effort in Korea.

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Good intentions with bad consequences.

Yeah that's why I brought it up, Truman is where is started in earnest. But Churchill was furious with FDR for ceding so much to Stalin, so there's some blame to be had there as well. We could have and should have crushed the Russians when we had the upper hand, the world would certainly be a better place now, and just think what our society and the world would be like if all the money we wasted fighting the Cold War could have been spent on other things.

For one thing, we wouldn't have had to side with outright muderous dictators just because they weren't commies, which over the past 60 years has increasingly made us out to be hypocrits to much of the world.

Ahh.....what-if history is so much fun sometimes. :beer:

I highly doubt your assertion that US had the upper hand to crush the Russians. Russia had ramped up industrial production at that time, and really not much to lose.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Are you serious? The US Army at the end of WWII could not have driven to Moscow. By 1945, the Soviet Army was big and powerful, and drove the Germans back from in front of Moscow all the way to Berlin.

Remember, in Europe, 2/3 of the German Army was fighting the USSR, and only 1/3 was fighting us.

Could we have achieved a limited success and maybe taken back Eastern Germany or other countires, who knows? But invading the USSR would never work.

Soviets were depleted of manpower and economic means to continue. The Germans they were beating back in late 44-45 were old men and 16 year old children. Even then they had their problems, even at the very end of the war. Wave after wave of soviet formations decimated by depleted SS and Volkstrum units to the east of Berlin.

It wouldnt have been easy but could have been done. Our military was left relatively in tact after the war and had over 11 million men in arms with the strongest industry and a homefront left untouched. Not to mention nuclear weapons.

People like Churchill, Patton, ect knew what was coming but people didnt listen. By April of 45 the US army knew what the Soviets were doing in eastern europe. They were rounding up people in the countrysides of eastern europe.

At the very least we should have forced Stalins hand to leave Eastern Europe.

It is hard to justify defeating one totalitarian regime only to have another equally as brutal take its place.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

And those civilian politicians are led by the media. The media controls this war, noone else.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

Unfortunately I think that way of war-fighting is long over, never to return. Not with the complete media manipulation that goes on nowadays. The same could be said for Vietnam, only now I think it's much worse. There won't be any more Dresden's, or Nagasaki's, we longer fight wars to win. Along the lines of what Zebo was saying, we need to take the gloves off and go all out, that's how wars are won, punish these people until they give up or are annihilated, there is no middle ground and they certainly won't grant us any reprieve, ever. If this truly is a war to preserve our civilization as W says, then we need to fight it that way.

McArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese when they came over the border, we should have.

The change started right after WWII by the Truman administration. Korea was the first test of having our military fight with their hands tied. McArthur was correct in his public lambasting of Truman's interference in the war effort in Korea.

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Good intentions with bad consequences.

Yeah that's why I brought it up, Truman is where is started in earnest. But Churchill was furious with FDR for ceding so much to Stalin, so there's some blame to be had there as well. We could have and should have crushed the Russians when we had the upper hand, the world would certainly be a better place now, and just think what our society and the world would be like if all the money we wasted fighting the Cold War could have been spent on other things.

For one thing, we wouldn't have had to side with outright muderous dictators just because they weren't commies, which over the past 60 years has increasingly made us out to be hypocrits to much of the world.

Ahh.....what-if history is so much fun sometimes. :beer:

I highly doubt your assertion that US had the upper hand to crush the Russians. Russia had ramped up industrial production at that time, and really not much to lose.

They were pretty much exhausted by that point, we unlike the Germans, had the long range air power to destroy Russia's industrial base. We wouldn't need to occupy the USSR, just beat Stalin into the dirt, keep Eastern Europe intact, and all the rest would fall into place.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

And those civilian politicians are led by the media. The media controls this war, noone else.

Then since the media is such left leaning group , why haven't they put a stop to it????

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

And those civilian politicians are led by the media. The media controls this war, noone else.

We never have been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically and that's where wars are won and lost. Another mistake of Bush was embedded journalists.

 

[Lemon law]

Armies, generals, and the military the world over are asked to be good at just two things---killing people and breaking things----and its the threat of killing and breaking things compulsion that allows a military to accomplish its goals. To expect these military people to also understand the political way of thinking---where the desired goal is accomplished by persuation and not compulsion is not rational.---especially when you realise the face of the politician will be the ordinary soldier interacting with the civilian population---and not the general who may have some political gifts.

Then add that to the FACT that our commander and chief---and his cronies----are BOTH political and military IDIOTS---and one gets an idea of how Iraq has gone bad. The Iraqi people were willing to give us a chance--were glad to get rid of Saddam---the insurgency was minimal and was cultavated by none other than GWB&co.---with zero being done to fix infrastructure and human rights abuses like Abu Ghrab.

And any that blames our military are just total idiots---they won the war in a week----GWB&co. has been losing the peace in Iraq for 3.7 years---because they are clueless---in a military and political sense. And they talk to only themselves---no more than about 20 people---in a world where there are billions of people who don't think the way they do. Its a recipie for diaster---how can any think it will ever turn out better.

 

[yllus]

I should state that the first Gulf War is a departure from that political hand-tying norm. General Schwarzkopf flatly outlined that the same type of silly restraints not occur that he witnessed during Vietnam, and the first Bush president, along with SecDef Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Powell followed his lead. What's kind of amusing is that both Schwarzkopf and the general in charge of the air campaign during the Gulf War, Chuck Horner, both commented in separate books about Cheney's hawkish attitude about the war. IIRC, Powell had to act as a moderating influence on the guy.

The first President Bush is a pretty underrated guy. Smart bastard, both in handling the fall of the U.S.S.R. and in leading the country during the Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87
The Generals have their hands tied by civilian politicians. Let the generals do their jobs like we did in WWII and things may change.

I dont think we as a nation can handle what happens when we unleash our military.

Unfortunately I think that way of war-fighting is long over, never to return. Not with the complete media manipulation that goes on nowadays. The same could be said for Vietnam, only now I think it's much worse. There won't be any more Dresden's, or Nagasaki's, we longer fight wars to win. Along the lines of what Zebo was saying, we need to take the gloves off and go all out, that's how wars are won, punish these people until they give up or are annihilated, there is no middle ground and they certainly won't grant us any reprieve, ever. If this truly is a war to preserve our civilization as W says, then we need to fight it that way.

McArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese when they came over the border, we should have.

The change started right after WWII by the Truman administration. Korea was the first test of having our military fight with their hands tied. McArthur was correct in his public lambasting of Truman's interference in the war effort in Korea.

Guys like Patton, McArthur, Bradley ect would probably quit in a ball of flames if they were forced to fight nice. Patton had the idea to drive to Moscow, imagine if we took him up on it? No cold war for 50 years, no oppressed eastern europe. Communism stopped dead in its tracks 60 years ago. Possibly no Korea, no vietnam.

Good intentions with bad consequences.

Yeah that's why I brought it up, Truman is where is started in earnest. But Churchill was furious with FDR for ceding so much to Stalin, so there's some blame to be had there as well. We could have and should have crushed the Russians when we had the upper hand, the world would certainly be a better place now, and just think what our society and the world would be like if all the money we wasted fighting the Cold War could have been spent on other things.

For one thing, we wouldn't have had to side with outright muderous dictators just because they weren't commies, which over the past 60 years has increasingly made us out to be hypocrits to much of the world.

Ahh.....what-if history is so much fun sometimes. :beer:

I highly doubt your assertion that US had the upper hand to crush the Russians. Russia had ramped up industrial production at that time, and really not much to lose.

They were pretty much exhausted by that point, we unlike the Germans, had the long range air power to destroy Russia's industrial base. We wouldn't need to occupy the USSR, just beat Stalin into the dirt, keep Eastern Europe intact, and all the rest would fall into place.

Wouldn't work. USSR would overrun airbases in Europe, and keep them tanks and planes coming from plants in Siberia out of range of US bombers from UK and Asia. If you think USSR would settle for anything less than occupying Germany after what Germans did in USSR, no way in hell.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Everyone knows how to defeat this enemy that loves death more than we love life we are just unwilling to speak it.

There is much more to the deep-seated hatred against us from the Middle East than just "they hate freedom and love death".

Originally posted by: Zebo
You guys remember the street celebrations of Hezbolla and thousands of other examples of "death to america" rallies thoughout the ME? Cluster bombs needed there in real warfare as none are friends of the United States...

People should not be murdered because of their ideologies. The only ones we should kill are those that fight us.

 

[zephyrprime]

The biggest problem in Iraq is that there aren't enough people over there to occupy that nation. We can thank the administration for that problem.

The second problem in Iraq is that the goal has never been to merely win a conventional military victory over there or even to create a honeypot for terrorists. The goals of the Iraq War were to remove Saddam (success) and create a modern model democracy that would blaze a trail for the rest of the Arab world to follow. The second goal is very possbily unachievable and it's thanks to the naivety of the neocons. It's because our goals are unconventional that we can't win over ther by using WW2 tactics.