Mass US protest against Iraq war

#41
frenchperson said:
Just because you're not hearing or reading about it doesn't mean they've given up and gone home. At times like this, with news management more to the fore, you often have to go and seek it out. Here's a link to help you anyway
You could say the same thing about the soldiers over there in regards to training Iraqis and supporting institutions
 
#46
And for what its worth Chief Joseph,
I'll sling this in the pot:

www.huffingtonpost.com...39898.html
I presume that that article was written by Gen Wesley Clark.
Isn't he the guy that nearly started world war 3 by oredering an attack on the Russians?

Also, if having reached the exalted heights of SACEUR, all he can find to put into his bio is this:

Born in 1944 in Chicago, Illinois and raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, Wesley Clark distinguished himself early as an athlete and a scholar, leading his high school swimming team to a state championship and graduating first in his class from West Point. In 1966, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics.
is he worth listening to?
 
#47
By all means please supply more details riflair.
Are we talking Kosovo or something?
 
#48
If I remember correctly, did he not order a British General to attack and move the Russians from the airport, and the British General responded with something like ' I'm not starting world war 3 for you'

If that was the case, would it be a good idea to take that persons assessment of anything?
 
#49
rifleair said:
And for what its worth Chief Joseph,
I'll sling this in the pot:

www.huffingtonpost.com...39898.html
I presume that that article was written by Gen Wesley Clark.
Isn't he the guy that nearly started world war 3 by oredering an attack on the Russians?

Also, if having reached the exalted heights of SACEUR, all he can find to put into his bio is this:

Born in 1944 in Chicago, Illinois and raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, Wesley Clark distinguished himself early as an athlete and a scholar, leading his high school swimming team to a state championship and graduating first in his class from West Point. In 1966, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics. [/quote

is he worth listening to?
Yes it was him, and NO he isn't worth listening too! He's a POS!
 
#50
Trip_Wire said:
rifleair said:
And for what its worth Chief Joseph,
I'll sling this in the pot:

www.huffingtonpost.com...39898.html
I presume that that article was written by Gen Wesley Clark.
Isn't he the guy that nearly started world war 3 by oredering an attack on the Russians?

Also, if having reached the exalted heights of SACEUR, all he can find to put into his bio is this:

Born in 1944 in Chicago, Illinois and raised in Little Rock, Arkansas, Wesley Clark distinguished himself early as an athlete and a scholar, leading his high school swimming team to a state championship and graduating first in his class from West Point. In 1966, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he earned a Masters Degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics. [/quote

is he worth listening to?
Yes it was him, and NO he isn't worth listening too! He's a POS!
Well, thanks for yet another profound insight, Trip. It's good to know that you're always on hand to be the final arbiter in deliberations on what is good, noble and decent.

The fact is, ladies and gentleman, that the Clark-Jackson tiff was a symptom of a much bigger bunfight which was going on between No.10 and the White House. POD was getting his orders from Chairman Tony, Clark was getting his from Washington. Played well to the Daily Mirror crowd, though.
 
#51
crabtastic:
Quote

"Well, thanks for yet another profound insight, Trip. It's good to know that you're always on hand to be the final arbiter in deliberations on what is good, noble and decent."

Hey! No problem crabtastic, always willing to call a POS, a POS!

I can see why this POS, would appeal to you and your cronies!

I suggest, that you ask his peer group in the american military, both active and retired, what they think of Wesley Clark!

Gen. Clark was a first class ticket puncher and Perfumed Prince!

http://www.hackworth.com/9aug99.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/654810/posts
 
#52
rifleair said:
If I remember correctly, did he not order a British General to attack and move the Russians from the airport, and the British General responded with something like ' I'm not starting world war 3 for you'

If that was the case, would it be a good idea to take that persons assessment of anything?
Clarke did a few bonehead moves but he also did a few things right.

Jackson's certainly guilty of hyperbole. Drunken Boris Yeltsin's government was in the midst of an economic meltdown at the time and he wasn't going to 'face off' with the West and start WWIII over an airport in Kosovo.

But hey, it's a great soundbite ain't it? The stuff historical myths are made of.
 
#53
Trip_Wire said:
crabtastic:
Quote

"Well, thanks for yet another profound insight, Trip. It's good to know that you're always on hand to be the final arbiter in deliberations on what is good, noble and decent."

Hey! No problem crabtastic, always willing to call a POS, a POS!

I can see why this POS, would appeal to you and your cronies!

I suggest, that you ask his peer group in the american military, both active and retired, what they think of Wesley Clark!
Well, firstly, perhaps you'd like to share exactly why you think he's a POS? It might be worthwhile for us to hear a considered opinion from you, even if its just for its novelty value, but I doubt it will be either forthcoming or worthwhile.

Second, I wasn't aware that I had any cronies. Could you point them out to me please? I can't stand kiss-arses and would love to give them a rifting.

Thirdly, Clark's reputation is pretty mixed, actually. He does have a bit of an ego on him (so maybe you do have something in common), but they don't come much brighter than him and he doesn't have a problem calling dumbasses dumbasses- which is probably one of the things about him that upsets you since you've repeatedly demonstrated that you lack the cognitive capacity to think your way out of a maze printed on the side of a McDonalds happy meal box. As I've already stated, the decision to move on Pristina Airport and confront the Russians wasn't his to make- no general in his right mind would ever consider risking an armed confrontation with a nuclear power unless he had the full support of his political masters. I'll be the first to admit that prima facie it was a tactical error, since despite what you think, I'm not a Democratic Party hack. I can and have been critical of Democratic presidents' decisions (I am a policy analyst) on numerous occasions. However, there's also the larger picture to consider if we see the move as an exercise in coercive diplomacy. The Russians started listening a lot more attentively afterwards and the Bulgarians et al prevented the Russians from reinforcing their position by denying their airspace. If you can't get your head around that, just think about this too- the Russians and Serbs had to deal with POD on a daily basis. Wouldn't it make sense, therefore, to portray Jackson as the good cop in a "good cop/bad cop" routine? God knows, the way he looks, he'd need every leg-up he could get on that front.

Finally, and getting back to thread, if you want to see what the American people think, look at the polling data, read the letters to editors in the newspapers and yes, look at the demonstrations and talk to Americans who are actually able to string together a coherent train of thought rather than the "I support my CinC and I'm willing to give him this 9th or 10th chance to get it right because I'm too stupid or lazy to think for myself" crowd. Even that fcukstick, Toby Keith (the country&western singer who had the run-in with the Dixie Chicks) has come out against the war. Like I said before- better late than never.

Monkey Boy's latest plan was unveiled almost 3 weeks ago and from San Diego, through Orange County and Los Angeles, I have yet to meet anyone, military or civilian, Democrat or Republican, who honestly thinks that this latest hairbrained scheme has a snowball's chance in Hell of working. Even the Administration's tack has been "Well, let's give it a chance. It might work". The most optimistic Republicans on the Sunday Morning talk shows in the past couple of weeks have been giving odds of about 3:1 that it'll work, all the time talking up Dave Petraeus (presumably so he can be the fall guy later) and what a wonderful job he did with the 101st Air Assault, while conveniently neglecting to point out that the situation over there wasn't nearly as dire and the insurgency so well established at that point in time.

FFS, how much longer must we put up with this criminal level of negligence and ineptitude? More men and women are going to be fed into the grinder just so that fcuking moron at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave can try to delay the inevitable.

We need to get out of Iraq. We can't save the place. The planners and the powers at be need to stop their wishful thinking and deal with the painful reality that Iraq is going to be well and truly in the sh1tter for the foreseeable future- at least 10-15 years. Accordingly, the grown-ups in the room need to sit down and discuss how it might be possible (if at all) to contain the chaos to just Iraq. At the same time, US policymakers need to try and figure out a way for the United States to recover its image in the world. Any moral pretentions the US had vis a vis its claim to be the leader of the free world are well and truly mullered.
 
#54
crabtastic:

What part of COL Hackworths article didn't you understand. I agree with what the good COL said about your hero! Thus, I think he is a POS!

http://www.hackworth.com/9aug99.html

As for your cronies, I meant your new left fellow academics, you cnut!

At least you live in the right State and city for your jaded views. :thumbdown:
 
#55
Trip_Wire said:
crabtastic:

What part of COL Hackworths article didn'r you understand. I agree with what th good COL said about your hero! Thus, I think he is a POS!

http://www.hackworth.com/9aug99.html

As for your cronies, I meant your new left fellow academics, you cnut!

At least you live in the right State and city for your jaded views. :thumbdown:
Of course you rose to the heights of Cpl and so your opinion on a General is.......never mind :yawnstretch:

I see you are your usual polite self TW....
 
#56
So, once again, you can't/won't actually express your own ideas, you'd just sooner continue to rely on the to the "yeah, what he just said" argument so beloved of morons and intellectual midgets everywhere

So, since you're not going to think for yourself, let's critique Hackworth, shall we? (Overlooking the possibility that, like many retired Cols, he might well have a monk-on because he never got his star.)

Was it because Clark and his flacks kept crowing about how NATO was destroying the Serb army, when in truth NATO barely laid a glove on its opponent?
See Shea, Jamie and Campbell, Alistair et al. The political masters had a line, which had to be followed. Anyone that's looked at the public statements coming from senior officers in every modern conflict, from Vietnam to Iraq can tell you this.

Certainly these sins, plus his hot temper, abrasive style and demand for much of America's air assets to fight the Serbs, didn't exactly win fans in Washington. Like a little boy stamping his feet, he wanted everything NOW and showed no concern for the Pentagon's need to maintain global forces to cover threats from other fronts such as Iraq and North Korea.
Fact- this was the only shooting war going on at the time. North Korea had not yet been prompted to restart nuclear enrichment. As for the vaunted Iraqi Air Force? Gimme a break. Incidentally, how can such a line of argumentation be sustained with a straight face these days? You agree with it, Trip- so come on, justify it.

But among mud soldiers, he's known as a guy who never paid his dues with the troops in the trenches and doesn't understand the nitty- gritty of war or what motivates warriors down at the bayonet level. He's like a doctor who's brilliant at theory but dangerous with a scalpel because he hasn't been there and done that long enough to learn the skills of the trade. In 33 years of service, Clark spent only seven and one- half years in command with troops from platoon to division level-- barely enough time to learn what makes a tank platoon tick. The rest of his service was as a staff weenie, an aide, a student, at the White House or at some fat cat headquarters.

The man is not a field soldier; he's more a CEO in uniform. Perhaps an efficient manager, but not a Patton-like leader. The troops call his sort "Perfumed Princes," brass known for their micromanagement bias and slavish focus on "show over go" and covering their tails with fancy footwork.
I can recall off the top of my head another US general who met with similar criticism, and were he alive to day he would certainly be placed on the left of the political spectrum. His name was Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The "slick and quick" replaced the warriors who knew how to win wars and inspire soldiers because they'd spent most of their careers down in the dirt learning their trade the hard, old- fashioned way.
The trouble is, the last "real" war (from Hackworth's POV) that was fought was World War II. Things have moved on a bit since then. I suggest you go to Amazon and pick up a copy of The Utility of Force, by Gen Rupert Smith.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23112-1779750,00.html
It should become quite apparent that the role of the General as the politician is just as important, if not moreso, than the role of the general as a war fighter. Although Hackworth lauds Patton as the ideal general, it must not be fortgotten that he caused almost as many political problems as he solved military ones. Let us not forget, that war is ultimately a political act. Patton's utility as a combat commander overcame his political ineptitude by only the slimmest of margins.

Let's hope -- for our country's security and for the welfare of our soldiers -- that the new Army leadership team that just took over gets rid of the "Perfumed Princes" and the culture that's created them. And returns warrior leaders to the top positions.
See Myers, Richard & Pace, Peter. Oh well. ;)

Anyways, back to the opposition to Iraq and whether SoCal is a representative bellweather. How much time have you spent in Southern California, Trip? Because you know the square root of fcuk all about California politics. It's not all Nancy Pelosi and gay marriage at San Fransico City Hall. Go South of LA, and you head into some of the most conservative districts in the Country. Look up Randall "Duke" Cunningham and "B1" Bob Dornan. Among the current Reps there's Darrell Issa, Dana Rorbacher, Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, John Campbell and Ken Calvert.
 
#57
A little bit of light relief
and credit where credits due - I do like a good dig don't you?
Tony Snow answering a question about the war protest:

Q What did the President think of the march on Washington?

MR. SNOW: I don't think he really thought a lot about it. It's nice to see Jane Fonda in front of the camera again. There are a number of people who were here making statements, and that's perfectly appropriate. This is a vigorous democracy.

Ooo, I bet that hurt, the poor lass will be smarting for years over that one.
Hat tip to the shyster spokesman for that.
 
#58
SLRboy said:
spiffy said:
A small protest with that traitor bitch hanoi jane present. I do hope she has a fatal illness soon.
If the likes of Jane Fonda are protesting in order that the likes of you are kept chained to your post rather than being allowed to run free in the yard - I'm all for it, in a big, big way.
I think it is fair to suggest that Jane Fonda is primarily protesting for the benefit of...Jane Fonda. As with her treasonous behaviour during the Vietnam War, she is merely using opposition to this present conflict as a means to parade her left-wing credentials and to drag herself back from the career wilderness. She and her ilk were wrong more than thirty years ago, and they're wrong now. They clearly would like to see a return to the America of the 1970s - angst-ridden, divided, military-loathing and the perfect platform for moral poseurs such as herself. 'Support the troops - bring them home' - how exactly does cutting and running equate to supporting the troops?

Here's an idea - if Jane Fonda feels so utterly assured of her position, why does she not visit U.S. Forces in Iraq? - now there's a reception I'd pay good money to witness.
 
#59
SLRboy said:
Somewhere on the Huffington a couple of weeks ago I read an informative article as to why even though this war is more disastrous than Vietnam ever was .........
How do you work that one out?
 
#60
Lasalle said:
SLRboy said:
Somewhere on the Huffington a couple of weeks ago I read an informative article as to why even though this war is more disastrous than Vietnam ever was .........
How do you work that one out?
I'm afraid for the moment I can't help you Lasalle.
Perhaps if you could re post the whole of my post it might shed some light. But by the sound of it it doesn't seem like I've provided a link to the particular article.
 

Latest Threads

Top