General Clark: "If I had been president, I would have had Bin Laden by this Time"

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

Give me a fscking break already (and that's not just the result of the above post). If we had sent several divisions into Afghanistan to look for bin Laden and friends, we would be embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now the way the Soviets were, and the fledging government of Karzai would have no chance at legitmacy with the people outside Kabul. Sure, we'd probably find bin Laden, assuming we could cross the border at will into Pakistan, but we'd wind up leaving Afghanistan in an even more chaotic state with quite a few more casualties than we're even now taking in Iraq.

Give me a break. The difference is we have a legitimate reason to have troops in Afghanistan. We had international support to have troops in Afghanistan. We have neither in Iraq. (Newsflash: we're embroiled in a guerilla war in Iraq instead. What's your point?)

Oh, and what would happen with those casualties? The same people here, right now, offering the suggestion that we should have sent more troops would be heaping criticism on the Bush administration for "killing our boys" and "being unilateral" (with dozens of countries in Iraq, I still fail to see the unilateral aspect) and whatever other epithets the pundits could create. Once bin Laden were found/killed/whatever, the criticism would quickly change to allegations of ineptitude because of the casualties. If you have any doubts, one need only look at the capture of Saddam. For months prior, the biggest criticism was that the Bush administration "couldn't even find Saddam". Now he has been found, and it's moved to "we're still there" and "the attacks continue" and "the Iraqis need to govern now" and "our troops are still dying" and the list goes on and on.

It must be interesting in your world. When I have a list of problems or issues or things to do, I don't erase the whole list by taking care of one of them. I guess Bush and his worshippers have a little different set of values. As long as you do something, right or wrong, it's good enough. Finishing the rest of the job will be left for the next guy, a.k.a. getting someone else to finish cleaning up your messes.

Let's not forget Pakistan (God forbid we bring some political realism to the discussion! Horror!). Having our troops trample around the northwestern border of their country looking for bin Laden would make Musharraf's tentative hold on the government even more unstable, and it is easy to imagine a popular uprising (or a military one) against his administration, since he did take hold of the government in a coup d'etat.

But, sure, go ahead and send thousands upon thousands of troops into Afghanistan. Oh, wait, you mean there are consequences to that? Oops, didn't think of that!

Imagine all you want. Afghanistan is legitimate. Iraq is not. That's why I object to Iraq and not to Afghanistan. Unlike the YABA neo-fascists, some of us still believe in right and wrong.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

Even worse...people like him are the reason they do it. They count on people losing the stomach to combat evil at the first sight of ugliness. Imagine what this world would be like if people like him ran things and shriveled away every time something got messy?

Blah, blah, blah. Warmongers 101: never let people decide if a war is right or wrong. Attack anyone who shows signs of independent thought or concern about the toll of war. Let the bodies pile up as long as you're safe and sound on your couch.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

You're such a pathetic partisan. "I believe him." You believe a politician? You don't believe G W though. Strange that your trust runs right down party lines.

You think we needed 100,000 troops on the ground? Well we have three times that many in Iraq and you're bitching your head off every time one of them is killed. Do you know how many more US troops would have been killed in Afghanistan had we placed 100,000 troops there? Do you even think about anything or just "believe" what the nearest liberal shouts?

I'm sure that's how the world looks through your YABA-colored glasses. There's no possible valid criticism of Bush-lite. Anyone who suggests anything different is partisan. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

In spite of your absolutist, black and white view of the world, some people are capable of independent thought. We're intelligent enough to decide for ourselves when we do and do not believe specific comments by a person, including politicians. Yes, I believe Clark when he says he would have bin Laden by now. It strikes me as a true statement. I also believed George H.W. Bush when he said Reagan was preaching Voodoo Economics. It struck me as true statement, and we got the deficits to prove it. I believed John McCain when he said he would be a better President than Bush-lite. It struck me as a true statement, and we have the Iraqi quagmire to prove it.

On the other hand, Clinton lied about sex. I never believed him when he denied it; I just didn't think it was very important. I didn't believe Nixon when he said, "I am not a crook." Yeah, whatever. And most of all, I rarely believe Bush-lite because his track record stinks. He and his minions seem to lie about practically everything. That's not partisan, that's just the truth.

Finally, as others have pointed out, we don't have 300,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. You wouldn't talk out of your rectum so much if you removed your head first.

 

[Piano Man]

Yea, that comment is freakin' ridiculous and very Bush-like.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I believe him. Imagine what we could have done if we'd had 100,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

That's always been my single biggest issue with Iraq. It's not just that Bush and his minions lied through their teeth, it's that they neglected their pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to pursue their imperialist agenda. Of all the sleaze bags that exploited 9/11 for personal gain, I think the Bush gang was the worst.

Give me a fscking break already (and that's not just the result of the above post). If we had sent several divisions into Afghanistan to look for bin Laden and friends, we would be embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now the way the Soviets were, and the fledging government of Karzai would have no chance at legitmacy with the people outside Kabul. Sure, we'd probably find bin Laden, assuming we could cross the border at will into Pakistan, but we'd wind up leaving Afghanistan in an even more chaotic state with quite a few more casualties than we're even now taking in Iraq.

Oh, and what would happen with those casualties? The same people here, right now, offering the suggestion that we should have sent more troops would be heaping criticism on the Bush administration for "killing our boys" and "being unilateral" (with dozens of countries in Iraq, I still fail to see the unilateral aspect) and whatever other epithets the pundits could create. Once bin Laden were found/killed/whatever, the criticism would quickly change to allegations of ineptitude because of the casualties. If you have any doubts, one need only look at the capture of Saddam. For months prior, the biggest criticism was that the Bush administration "couldn't even find Saddam". Now he has been found, and it's moved to "we're still there" and "the attacks continue" and "the Iraqis need to govern now" and "our troops are still dying" and the list goes on and on.

Let's not forget Pakistan (God forbid we bring some political realism to the discussion! Horror!). Having our troops trample around the northwestern border of their country looking for bin Laden would make Musharraf's tentative hold on the government even more unstable, and it is easy to imagine a popular uprising (or a military one) against his administration, since he did take hold of the government in a coup d'etat.

But, sure, go ahead and send thousands upon thousands of troops into Afghanistan. Oh, wait, you mean there are consequences to that? Oops, didn't think of that!

Good points. Didn't realize things would change so drastically between sending 10k troops to attack a foreign government and sending 140k. To me, being an aggressor is being an aggressor, and I wouldn't make a distinction based on the forces deployed. Then again, maybe that's why none of the democratic hopefuls have called and asked me to be their military advisor .

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

Even worse...people like him are the reason they do it. They count on people losing the stomach to combat evil at the first sight of ugliness. Imagine what this world would be like if people like him ran things and shriveled away every time something got messy?

Blah, blah, blah. Warmongers 101: never let people decide if a war is right or wrong. Attack anyone who shows signs of independent thought or concern about the toll of war. Let the bodies pile up as long as you're safe and sound on your couch.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ZeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Wolfie

During its first weekend, when the captured POW's were paraded on TV and I was reminded of how ugly war was, I switched my view and haven't looked back since.

The main reason why we should stay in there. This shows you the kind of people they have over there.

Wolfie

Even worse...people like him are the reason they do it. They count on people losing the stomach to combat evil at the first sight of ugliness. Imagine what this world would be like if people like him ran things and shriveled away every time something got messy?

Blah, blah, blah. Warmongers 101: never let people decide if a war is right or wrong. Attack anyone who shows signs of independent thought or concern about the toll of war. Let the bodies pile up as long as you're safe and sound on your couch.

Something on your mind?

 

[fumbduck]

did he enunciate on the 'T' in the word "Time" so that it deserved capitalization?

I'm really just curious, I mean, if quoting someone's speech, I guess you can't go wrong with capitalization.

So I think he said it like this: "iF i HaD BeEN pRESiDeNT, I wOUlD HaVE haD BiN laDeN BY thIs tIMe"

 

[AndrewR]

Give me a break. The difference is we have a legitimate reason to have troops in Afghanistan. We had international support to have troops in Afghanistan. We have neither in Iraq. (Newsflash: we're embroiled in a guerilla war in Iraq instead. What's your point?)

Newsflash: The country (Iraq) is improving every day, and the capture of Saddam will only accelerate the transition to a peaceful and democratic country. Or, did you think that a brutal dictatorship, and all the minions who carried out the repression over several decades, would disappear overnight?

And, by the way, we did have international support for going into Iraq, just not the French, Germans and Russians. I guess only certains nations make something "international". What a novel way of looking at the world!

It must be interesting in your world. When I have a list of problems or issues or things to do, I don't erase the whole list by taking care of one of them. I guess Bush and his worshippers have a little different set of values. As long as you do something, right or wrong, it's good enough. Finishing the rest of the job will be left for the next guy, a.k.a. getting someone else to finish cleaning up your messes.

Laughable that you would critisize the Bush administration for ignoring problems when the entire left wing doesn't think that Iraq was ever a problem that needed to be solved, despite their history of invasions and use of chemical weapons! Further, last I checked, we're still in Afghanistan and still hunting al-Qaeda, world-wide -- not just one corner of the world.

Imagine all you want. Afghanistan is legitimate. Iraq is not. That's why I object to Iraq and not to Afghanistan. Unlike the YABA neo-fascists, some of us still believe in right and wrong.

Imagine what, political and military reality? Heaven forbid military planners consider those when sending our troops in somewhere. Such planning was done for Afghanistan and Iraq -- you just happen to differ with the reasons for going into Iraq.

By the way, calling someone "fascist" is an obvious sign that you have no logical arguments to call on, merely epithets.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Give me a break. The difference is we have a legitimate reason to have troops in Afghanistan. We had international support to have troops in Afghanistan. We have neither in Iraq. (Newsflash: we're embroiled in a guerilla war in Iraq instead. What's your point?)

Newsflash: The country (Iraq) is improving every day, and the capture of Saddam will only accelerate the transition to a peaceful and democratic country. Or, did you think that a brutal dictatorship, and all the minions who carried out the repression over several decades, would disappear overnight?

I agree this is good news, but you are dodging the point. You claimed we couldn't go into Afghanistan with a large force because we would be "embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now." I just pointed out that we are anyway ... in Iraq. You say Iraq is showing improvement. Afghanistan would be improving by now too had we gone in with a major force. In short, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other, the substantive difference remains that Afghanistan is a legitimate target due to al Qaeda. Iraq is not.

And, by the way, we did have international support for going into Iraq, just not the French, Germans and Russians. I guess only certains nations make something "international". What a novel way of looking at the world!

("If we just repeat this absurd claim over and over and over, maybe people will finally start to believe it."

Give my regards to Bumpintheroadistan.)

It must be interesting in your world. When I have a list of problems or issues or things to do, I don't erase the whole list by taking care of one of them. I guess Bush and his worshippers have a little different set of values. As long as you do something, right or wrong, it's good enough. Finishing the rest of the job will be left for the next guy, a.k.a. getting someone else to finish cleaning up your messes.

Laughable that you would critisize the Bush administration for ignoring problems when the entire left wing doesn't think that Iraq was ever a problem that needed to be solved, despite their history of invasions and use of chemical weapons! Further, last I checked, we're still in Afghanistan and still hunting al-Qaeda, world-wide -- not just one corner of the world.

Again you dodge the point. You're bent because we still criticize Bush-lite even though we got Hussein, as if that's the end of the story. I simply point out that fixing one problem on a list of 50 problems hardly erases the rest of the list. It's a great start, but it's a long way from finishing the job.

Imagine all you want. Afghanistan is legitimate. Iraq is not. That's why I object to Iraq and not to Afghanistan. Unlike the YABA neo-fascists, some of us still believe in right and wrong.

Imagine what, political and military reality? Heaven forbid military planners consider those when sending our troops in somewhere. Such planning was done for Afghanistan and Iraq -- you just happen to differ with the reasons for going into Iraq.

Really? How do you know? More to the point, do you know for a fact that we followed the plans of the military experts, or were they overridden by the politicians in and around the White House? There is no end of anecdotal evidence that Rumsfeld and the White House have constantly meddled in the military's planning. Frankly, that's a good thing, because any military planners who put us in this fiasco should be fired.

By the way, calling someone "fascist" is an obvious sign that you have no logical arguments to call on, merely epithets.

Poor baby, sorry if I hurt your delicate sensibilities. But what should we call them? I won't use "neo-conservative" because there's nothing conservative about them. That's a happy label they picked for themselves to mask their true agenda. I can rationalize "neo-con" as long as we reconize the "con" is short for either "con-men" -- which they are, or "convicts" -- which they should be.

However, in my opinion, their ideology most strongly resembles fascism. One could reasonably use "totalitarianism" too, but I think "facism" is more on-target because it implies a strong government-business partnership; government more typically owns the businesses in a truly totalitarian system. But, since George isn't King -- yet -- it's probably most appropriate to differentiate the Bush regime's ideology from classic fascism by referring to it as neo-facsim.

If you don't like that, perhaps you should reconsider your fawning support.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Clark said he "can't understand why the president hasn't devoted the same energy and resources to going after al Qaeda that he did to going after Iraq."

Hmm last i heard al Qaeda was a terrorist organization not a country with defined borders. Little tougher to get guys that don't have their own country. Network news was reporting this week that US intel is pretty certain thay have Bin Laden confined to a 40 square area in Pakistan. Unfortunately to go and get him ourselves we would have to invade another country. Pakistan will not give permission for us operate ground units in their country.

If Clark thinks sending the 101st and 82 airborne, the 1st marine division, and the first, second, and fourth IDs after Al Qaeda is a good idea then I certainly don't want him running my military. That would be just stupid.

You damn conservatives, always soft on terrorism. You can bet Al Gore wouldn't hesitate to invade another country if it meant preventing another 9/11. Sometimes you have to make the tough decisions to protect America.

Sure is a shame the bulk of our troops are mired in Iraq where bin Laden ISN'T. I suppose that's better than invading another . . . never mind.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[AndrewR]

I agree this is good news, but you are dodging the point. You claimed we couldn't go into Afghanistan with a large force because we would be "embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now." I just pointed out that we are anyway ... in Iraq. You say Iraq is showing improvement. Afghanistan would be improving by now too had we gone in with a major force. In short, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other, the substantive difference remains that Afghanistan is a legitimate target due to al Qaeda. Iraq is not.

How many soldiers died between last weekend and this weekend (ours)? Last count I saw was ONE. If you consider that a major guerrilla war, I suggest you take a look at the casualties from one week in Vietnam. Keep the conflict in perspective as it's essentially a low grade insurgency, not a major guerrilla war, given comparison to past conflicts.

Your dodging the reality of the situation in Afghanistan. The Afghanis would NOT accept a massive US invasion in the same manner that they have accepted the current situation, which amounts to less than 15,000 troops if I'm not mistaken (I know ISAF is about 6,600). It's not that the introduction of a large force necessarily entails the onset of a major guerrilla war -- you misunderstood my point. The particulars of Afghanistan, notably its history, point to a very negative reaction from the people. We're also not suffering very many casualties there either -- far less than Iraq. Fewer troops, fewer targets. Fewer troops, less hostile population reaction.

("If we just repeat this absurd claim over and over and over, maybe people will finally start to believe it." Give my regards to Bumpintheroadistan.)

Great Britain. Spain. Poland. Italy. Japan. South Korea. Australia. Such small and insignificant countries!

Again you dodge the point. You're bent because we still criticize Bush-lite even though we got Hussein, as if that's the end of the story. I simply point out that fixing one problem on a list of 50 problems hardly erases the rest of the list. It's a great start, but it's a long way from finishing the job.

No, I'm "bent" because for months the liberals have been braying about the inability of the Bush administration to catch Saddam as the sine qua non of ineptitude, yet when the capture is effectuated, it suddenly becomes unimportant. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Really? How do you know? More to the point, do you know for a fact that we followed the plans of the military experts, or were they overridden by the politicians in and around the White House? There is no end of anecdotal evidence that Rumsfeld and the White House have constantly meddled in the military's planning. Frankly, that's a good thing, because any military planners who put us in this fiasco should be fired.

What fiasco? We rolled over the entire country in a matter of days, not months, with an amazingly small number of forces using unprecedented coordination between air and ground units. There's no fiasco except that which exists in the minds of untrained pundits who have no concept of history or the size of the task at hand -- ie., overturning and replacing a brutal dictatorship after decades of repression. If anyone thinks that can happen easily, without problems, overnight, then they are ones who are delusional and seriously in need of medication.

Poor baby, sorry if I hurt your delicate sensibilities. But what should we call them? I won't use "neo-conservative" because there's nothing conservative about them. That's a happy label they picked for themselves to mask their true agenda. I can rationalize "neo-con" as long as we reconize the "con" is short for either "con-men" -- which they are, or "convicts" -- which they should be.

I don't care what you term "them", as long as you aren't terming me in the same manner. Personally, the label "neo-conservative" is asinine, regardless of who started using it. I'll ignore the rest of the diatribe.

 

[maluckey]

I want some of those one lens Bowfinger glasses that only see one side of things!!! Life would be so much easier without two sides to a viewpoint. Black and White you accuse everyone of being? Thats at least one side you've never seen.

When Clark was a Republican War-Monger, many on this board slammed him for his actions. Waco Texas ring a bell? Indiscriminate non-stop bombing in Kosovo? Ordering troops to attack the Russians, along with other serious ethics violations that got him removed from his post in Kosovo. What about when he stated that Bush and his team was the best thing to happen to this country, just a short while before his candidacy?

Thank god he's now a Democrat and all the hypocrites can love him and let all by-gones be by-gones. If it wasn't for Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman, I'd have lost all hope for the Democrats.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: maluckey
When Clark was a Republican War-Monger, many on this board slammed him for his actions.

Would you like to show some examples? I don't remember any discussion of Clark until it became clear that he was thinking about running for president.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I want some of those one lens Bowfinger glasses that only see one side of things!!! Life would be so much easier without two sides to a viewpoint. Black and White you accuse everyone of being? Thats at least one side you've never seen.

When Clark was a Republican War-Monger, many on this board slammed him for his actions. Waco Texas ring a bell? Indiscriminate non-stop bombing in Kosovo? Ordering troops to attack the Russians, along with other serious ethics violations that got him removed from his post in Kosovo. What about when he stated that Bush and his team was the best thing to happen to this country, just a short while before his candidacy?

Thank god he's now a Democrat and all the hypocrites can love him and let all by-gones be by-gones. If it wasn't for Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman, I'd have lost all hope for the Democrats.

Lovely rant, but what does any of it have to do with me?

By the way, the Clark/Waco smear has been thoroughly refuted; the comments about his "ethics violations" and Kosovo discredited. You don't enhance your credibility by continuing to repeat them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
[ ... ] The Afghanis would NOT accept a massive US invasion in the same manner that they have accepted the current situation, which amounts to less than 15,000 troops if I'm not mistaken (I know ISAF is about 6,600). It's not that the introduction of a large force necessarily entails the onset of a major guerrilla war -- you misunderstood my point. The particulars of Afghanistan, notably its history, point to a very negative reaction from the people.

It's an interesting opinion, but I've seen no evidence to persuade me you are correct. I still believe we'd caught bin Laden long ago if we'd gone into Afghanistan with the same focus and intensity with which we invaded Iraq. I believe the level of casualties would be similar. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

("If we just repeat this absurd claim over and over and over, maybe people will finally start to believe it." Give my regards to Bumpintheroadistan.)

Great Britain. Spain. Poland. Italy. Japan. South Korea. Australia. Such small and insignificant countries!

Unfortunately for the Bush apologists, you just gave the complete list of major "supporters" ... and some of their support was pretty hollow. No matter how much Bush tries to spin it, this was a US/UK invasion with an assortment of minor hangers-on offering their names in return for political favor. Pretending otherwise just damages your credibility. It would be better to acknowledge it for what it was and move on to other issues.

No, I'm "bent" because for months the liberals have been braying about the inability of the Bush administration to catch Saddam as the sine qua non of ineptitude, yet when the capture is effectuated, it suddenly becomes unimportant. That's intellectual dishonesty.

I can't speak for all "the liberals", but catching Hussein was never at the top of my list. It was an important objective and it highlighted one failure in Bush's campaign, but it certainly wasn't the big issue.

What fiasco?

Invading Iraq without an exit strategy. Failing to secure significant international support. Not putting enough troops on the ground to do the job right (a criticism echoed by a number of "untrained pundits" carrying the title "General", many of whom are or were on the ground there). Our invasion was a smashing success, agreed. Our occupation has been a fisasco.

I don't care what you term "them", as long as you aren't terming me in the same manner. Personally, the label "neo-conservative" is asinine, regardless of who started using it.

If you support the Cheney/Rumsfeld/PNAC ideology of a new world order dominated by U.S. military might, then I will term you a neo-fascist. If not, then I won't.

I'll ignore the rest of the diatribe.

Why? Because I'm wrong, or because I'm right on target?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Waco Texas ring a bell?

The accusations against General Clark regarding his complicity with the Waco/Branch Davidian debacle are urban legend.

Thread 1

Thread 2

If a more convincing argument then that which I present in both threads can be introduced, please do so.

Indiscriminate non-stop bombing in Kosovo?

Please see "Collateral Damage Incidents on this page. If the Kosovo air campaign was as "indiscriminate" as some might contend then Generals Schwarzkopf and Franks will almost certainly meet General Clark in hell.

Ordering troops to attack the Russians, along with other serious ethics violations that got him removed from his post in Kosovo.

We don't know the full story on the ethics violations because neither General Shelton nor former SoD Cohen have gone public with details of the matter. I do agree, however, that General Clark was perhaps too aggressive concerning the airfield incident with the Russians.

Yet LTG Michael Jackson, the UK officer who refused the order to seize the airfield, had this to say about the rift: "Success is what matters," said Jackson, adding "that is what Gen. Clark achieved."

<edit>formatting</edit>

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Give me a break. The difference is we have a legitimate reason to have troops in Afghanistan. We had international support to have troops in Afghanistan. We have neither in Iraq. (Newsflash: we're embroiled in a guerilla war in Iraq instead. What's your point?)

Newsflash: The country (Iraq) is improving every day, and the capture of Saddam will only accelerate the transition to a peaceful and democratic country. Or, did you think that a brutal dictatorship, and all the minions who carried out the repression over several decades, would disappear overnight?

I agree this is good news, but you are dodging the point. You claimed we couldn't go into Afghanistan with a large force because we would be "embroiled in a major guerrilla war right now." I just pointed out that we are anyway ... in Iraq. You say Iraq is showing improvement. Afghanistan would be improving by now too had we gone in with a major force. In short, six of one, half-a-dozen of the other, the substantive difference remains that Afghanistan is a legitimate target due to al Qaeda. Iraq is not.

If you think the number of casualties in Iraq is bad, imagine what would happen when we try to send troops into the mountains of Afghanistan.
Places where we can't take tanks, bradley's and helicopters. Then we really would have another Vietnam.

And, by the way, we did have international support for going into Iraq, just not the French, Germans and Russians. I guess only certains nations make something "international". What a novel way of looking at the world!

("If we just repeat this absurd claim over and over and over, maybe people will finally start to believe it."

Give my regards to Bumpintheroadistan.)

OK, I'll admit that nobody really cares that Eritrea is supporting the efforts in Iraq.
But you are saying that Japan, Italy, Spain, UK, Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, and virtually all of the former soviet republics are irrelevant countries?
But I guess without the French, Germans, and Russians, it's a unilateral action right?

EDIT: I missed your last post.
So you are calling Japan, Italy, and Spain hollow supporters who only did it for political favors?
Give me a break.
Did you listen to the speeches given by the Italian and Spanish leaders?
And why do you assume the motivations of the French, German, and Russian leaders to be somehow more pure and honorable?
It's become clear that they had major financial incentives to keep Saddam in power.

 

[DT4K]

Back on the topic.

Given Clark's past record, if he had been president, we probably would have already dropped nukes on Afghansistan, N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Or at least invaded them all.

 

[maluckey]

Bowfinger. Rose colored glasses again???? Clarks involvement in Kosovo is not one that anyone would call humanitarian, and his brutality and lack of concern for civilians is very well documented. His command of the troops used at Waco is not in question. Here's an example:

Military Personnel and Equipment used at Waco:

Personnel:

Active Duty - 15
Texas National Guard - 13

Vehicles:

Bradley fighting vehicle (OMZ) - 9
Combat Engineer Vehicle (M728) - 5
Tank Retrieval vehicle (M88) - 1
Abrams Tanks (M1A1) - 2

Source: Department of the Treasury, Report of
the Department of the Treasury on the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Investigation of
Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh,
U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993

Wesley Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. He was commander of these troops and vehicles. As the military commander of these troops, he bears full responsibility for their actions.

Care for a new prescription of those glasses now?

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Bowfinger. Rose colored glasses again???? Clarks involvement in Kosovo is not one that anyone would call humanitarian, and his brutality and lack of concern for civilians is very well documented. His command of the troops used at Waco is not in question. Here's an example:

Military Personnel and Equipment used at Waco:

Personnel:

Active Duty - 15
Texas National Guard - 13

Vehicles:

Bradley fighting vehicle (OMZ) - 9
Combat Engineer Vehicle (M728) - 5
Tank Retrieval vehicle (M88) - 1
Abrams Tanks (M1A1) - 2

Source: Department of the Treasury, Report of
the Department of the Treasury on the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Investigation of
Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh,
U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993

Wesley Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. He was commander of these troops and vehicles. As the military commander of these troops, he bears full responsibility for their actions.

Care for a new prescription of those glasses now?

Actually read the threads burnedout pointed to regarding the WACO myth.

As for the airfield incident, there actually has been some light shed on that. Though the source is undoubtably biased, they do present the data they drew their conclusions from, so you can read what they think about it here, review their sources and decide what you think about it for yourself.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Wesley Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. He was commander of these troops and vehicles. As the military commander of these troops, he bears full responsibility for their actions.

Please see the threads I mention, the related comments by the then-III Corps Commander, LTG Taylor and the "Danforth Report".

General Clark's active role in the Waco incident is nonexistent. If you want to assign responsibility, please include LTG Taylor, then-MG Clark's commander.

<edit>
Additionally, prove to me that those vehicles and troops you reference came from 1CAV and not from 2nd Armored Division (now 4ID).

One more note regarding responsibility: Once the source of the troops and vehicles is confirmed, it would also be nice to know the identities of the company grade and field grade officers in their respective chain-of-command. I want to know which idiotic O-3 Captain or O-5 LTC selected soldiers of such caliber to be included in the operation.



</edit>

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Bowfinger. Rose colored glasses again???? Clarks involvement in Kosovo is not one that anyone would call humanitarian, and his brutality and lack of concern for civilians is very well documented. His command of the troops used at Waco is not in question. Here's an example:

Military Personnel and Equipment used at Waco:

Personnel:

Active Duty - 15
Texas National Guard - 13

Vehicles:

Bradley fighting vehicle (OMZ) - 9
Combat Engineer Vehicle (M728) - 5
Tank Retrieval vehicle (M88) - 1
Abrams Tanks (M1A1) - 2

Source: Department of the Treasury, Report of
the Department of the Treasury on the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Investigation of
Vernon Wayne Howell also known as David Koresh,
U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1993

Wesley Clark was the Commander 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas from August 1992 to April 1994. The Mt. Carmel raid was on February 29, 1993. He was commander of these troops and vehicles. As the military commander of these troops, he bears full responsibility for their actions.

Care for a new prescription of those glasses now?

My glasses are fine, thank you. As I said, the Clark/Waco "connection" has been thoroughly refuted, his "command of the troops used at Waco is not in question" only because it's been established that he was NOT. Please see Amok's and Burnedout's posts above if you haven't already.

Would you like to borrow my glasses?

 

[maluckey]

burnedout, I agree that the lower level commanders must have been real pieces of work. It always amazes me when people try to exclusively blame the troop in the field for lack of common sense and control. It all goes back to simple command and control. Who picked the field commanders? Whoever was in command of the troops in the field bears more responsibility than someone sitting in their office...true, but it still reflects upon the entire chain of command. There was no possible way that CFV's, IFV's or M1 tanks could be lent out to a civilian agency without Clarks knowledge. Otherwise shows gross neglect of his duties. Any reasonable commander should have raised the warning flag at that point, despite whatever deal was cut with Clinton, Reno, and Richardson to allow military vehicles to be used in a civilian operation.

 

[TapTap]

Clinton:
"If I had known after the first attack on WTC, Khobar Towers and the Embassy attacks that Bin laden would have attacked again, I would have pursued him relentlessly"