General Accuses White House of War Crimes

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Bro...I know you're a radical conservative with your hair on fire for the cause and all. But Pat Buchanan wrote a book recently about the strategic and diplomatic blunders made by Britain that exacerbated the situation that led to WWI and WWII and compromised their global dominance. In his book he explains how America is making many of those very same mistakes.

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitl...ref=pd_sim_b_2

Bro...we're not fighting nation states. This is something far worse...and it cannot be defeated militarily...because no one can surrender for them all.

This is something that we can only handle defensively by securing our boarders, domestic security procedures, airports, and policies regarding foreign nationals here on visas.

I don't have much confidence in what the UK did early in WWII, nor do I have any confidence in Europe's support in this war. Just look at the fact that they are not dealing with the threat at their borders.

I am talking about what the US record in WWII is, if not for the US we would be speaking German or Japanese, that prospect is not to fun for me.

I totally agree that our borders need to immediately be sealed, but if we stick our heads in the sand as the radicals keep multiplying and threatening nation after nation our borders will not be safe when they have radicalize the rest of the world.

God commands the leaders of nations to resist evil men, that is the most important role of government, which ours has done so poorly. The reason is when anyone tries the leftists in this country beat the demonizing drums to brainwash the masses with the idea that we should just be nice and patronize these radical Islamics, "Bush is a liar, a war criminal , give us a break this plays into the hands of the enemy and weakens our image all over the world. If the media would support the cause, and the DEMOcrats would support our national security, the rest of the world would not hate the US. Our enemies despite this weakness, and it scares our friends, they don't know if they can trust us to be strong in the clutch. And our leftists continue to feed this contempt, day in and day out.

We should close our borders, drill our own oil, and kill the troublemakers where they raise their murdering heads.

We should also do as we are doing, persecute those that break our military laws, knowing that war is hell and some innocents will get hurt, therefore we can not eat our own at every little misstep.

[crakjak]

WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE 9/11, FOR THAT I GIVE GWB VERY HIGH MARKS.

YES, BUSH HAS A VERY LOW APPROVAL RATING AT 33%.

GUESS WHOSE IS LOWER....THE DEMOcrat CONTROLLED CONGRESS AT 22%!!!!

SO MUCH FOR THE GREAT WISDOM OF THE MEDIA AND THE LEFTISTS TO KICK THE REPUBLICANS OUT BY BRAINWASHING THE MASSES TO DO THEIR LEFTIST BIDDING.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I do see things wrong absolutely. I just don't believe everything I read and hear from either side. I live in Texas and know what Bush has done to education here. But we cannot blame it all on the CIC, Rumsfeld and other advisors yes. I do not condone torture on any human being by anyone, much less our government or military. But like most Americans I have not been involved in the military or a war. And I am supposed to take this mans word over whos? Who am I suppose to trust?

When I was in the military I learned an important principle of leadership. It was stressed that fault and responsibility are two very different things. While a leader may not be personally at fault for various failures or situations that arise, they are "responsible". Bush isn't personally at fault for a lot of what's going on. But what's troubling to many retired generals and policy hawks is that the Bush Administration primarily reacts to make corrections after being called on the failures that have arisen. There are very few examples of the Administration being caught "proactive" and already engaged in dealing with a problem that's been taking place. So Bush bears a lot of responsibility for things that he may not be personally to blame for.

The buck stops at the President.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by crakjak

I don't have much confidence in what the UK did early in WWII, nor do I have any confidence in Europe's support in this war. Just look at the fact that they are not dealing with the threat at their borders.

I am talking about what the US record in WWII is, if not for the US we would be speaking German or Japanese, that prospect is not to fun for me.

I totally agree that our borders need to immediately be sealed, but if we stick our heads in the sand as the radicals keep multiplying and threatening nation after nation our borders will not be safe when they have radicalize the rest of the world.

God commands the leaders of nations to resist evil men, that is the most important role of government, which ours has done so poorly. The reason is when anyone tries the leftists in this country beat the demonizing drums to brainwash the masses with the idea that we should just be nice and patronize these radical Islamics, "Bush is a liar, a war criminal , give us a break this plays into the hands of the enemy and weakens our image all over the world. If the media would support the cause, and the DEMOcrats would support our national security, the rest of the world would not hate the US. Our enemies despite this weakness, and it scares our friends, they don't know if they can trust us to be strong in the clutch. And our leftists continue to feed this contempt, day in and day out.

We should close our borders, drill our own oil, and kill the troublemakers where they raise their murdering heads.

We should also do as we are doing, persecute those that break our military laws, knowing that war is hell and some innocents will get hurt, therefore we can not eat our own at every little misstep.

I don't believe we're going to defeat terrorism with an extended ground war. I support withdrawing our troops in stages while handing over more and more responsibility to the Iraqi provisional government. I believe this will broaden the options on the table and get us out of a never ending ground war.

If I remember correctly military strategists in WWII were convinced that America wouldn't fair too well in an extended ground war with Japan. It was predicted that we'd be fighting never ending waves of resistance from insurgent Japanese on the Japanese mainland and possibly even in China or Korea.

We realized that the only options were a never ending extended ground war or....completely devastate and demoralize them. And so we decided to drop the atom bomb.

In my personal opinion immediately after 9/11 we should have locked into diplomatic agreements that would have allowed us to use ALL means necessary retaliate to terrorism. I still think this will end with us completely unleashing our power on Tehran or another significant region of Iran. We have to show the world that we will devastate nation states that fund and back terrorism. And we should make it clear that we will not get bogged down in a long ground war. We will attack their cities, facilities, or infrastructure with stealth bombers, cruise missiles, MOABs, and even nuclear weapons. If terrorists attack an American city leaving thousands dead and we trace their funding and assistance to let's say Cairo...say goodbye'O to Cairo.

I think we're going to keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting, and fighting while more and more and more Muslims extremists come out of the wood work. We need to absolutely horrify the nation states that support terror into deciding that helping terrorists isn't worth being completely destroyed.

So I'd withdraw troops to (A) get us out of a never ending ground war (B) to open the possibility of using other military options. We can't nuke Iran if our troops are downwind.

As much of a horror this is...here is how we won WWII...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoND...eature=related

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't believe we're going to defeat terrorism with an extended ground war. I support withdrawing our troops in stages while handing over more and more responsibility to the Iraqi provisional government. I believe this will broaden the options on the table and get us out of a never ending ground war.

If I remember correctly military strategists in WWII were convinced that America wouldn't fair too well in an extended ground war with Japan. It was predicted that we'd be fighting never ending waves of resistance from insurgent Japanese on the Japanese mainland and possibly even in China or Korea.

We realized that the only options were a never ending extended ground war or....completely devastate and demoralize them. And so we decided to drop the atom bomb.

In my personal opinion immediately after 9/11 we should have locked into diplomatic agreements that would have allowed us to use ALL means necessary retaliate to terrorism. I still think this will end with us completely unleashing our power on Tehran or another significant region of Iran. We have to show the world that we will devastate nation states that fund and back terrorism. And we should make it clear that we will not get bogged down in a long ground war. We will attack their cities, facilities, or infrastructure with stealth bombers, cruise missiles, MOABs, and even nuclear weapons. If terrorists attack an American city leaving thousands dead and we trace their funding and assistance to let's say Cairo...say goodbye'O to Cairo.

I think we're going to keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting, and fighting while more and more and more Muslims extremists come out of the wood work. We need to absolutely horrify the nation states that support terror into deciding that helping terrorists isn't worth being completely destroyed.

Wow, I was expecting a much more dovish response from you. I certainly agree that we have fought this war with one hand behind our backs. I am old school, if you go to war, you take the country by all means and then you use the spoils of war to pay for the war and to rebuild the country in your own image, not the image of all your enemies. Unfortunately the enemies uses ALL means at their disposal, including disinformation, and the deceived in our country.

BTW you know very well that the Dems and the media are not wanting to withdraw so that we can get tough with Iran, but you make the best case for withdrawal that I have heard.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I don't believe we're going to defeat terrorism with an extended ground war. I support withdrawing our troops in stages while handing over more and more responsibility to the Iraqi provisional government. I believe this will broaden the options on the table and get us out of a never ending ground war.

If I remember correctly military strategists in WWII were convinced that America wouldn't fair too well in an extended ground war with Japan. It was predicted that we'd be fighting never ending waves of resistance from insurgent Japanese on the Japanese mainland and possibly even in China or Korea.

We realized that the only options were a never ending extended ground war or....completely devastate and demoralize them. And so we decided to drop the atom bomb.

In my personal opinion immediately after 9/11 we should have locked into diplomatic agreements that would have allowed us to use ALL means necessary retaliate to terrorism. I still think this will end with us completely unleashing our power on Tehran or another significant region of Iran. We have to show the world that we will devastate nation states that fund and back terrorism. And we should make it clear that we will not get bogged down in a long ground war. We will attack their cities, facilities, or infrastructure with stealth bombers, cruise missiles, MOABs, and even nuclear weapons. If terrorists attack an American city leaving thousands dead and we trace their funding and assistance to let's say Cairo...say goodbye'O to Cairo.

I think we're going to keep fighting, and fighting, and fighting, and fighting while more and more and more Muslims extremists come out of the wood work. We need to absolutely horrify the nation states that support terror into deciding that helping terrorists isn't worth being completely destroyed.

So I'd withdraw troops to (A) get us out of a never ending ground war (B) to open the possibility of using other military options. We can't nuke Iran if our troops are downwind.

Has much of a horror this is...here is how we won WWII...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoND...eature=related

Wow, I totally agree with this post.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

When I was in the military I learned an important principle of leadership. It was stressed that fault and responsibility are two very different things. While a leader may not be personally at fault for various failures or situations that arise, they are "responsible". Bush isn't personally at fault for a lot of what's going on. But what's troubling to many retired generals and policy hawks is that the Bush Administration primarily reacts to make corrections after being called on the failures that have arisen. There are very few examples of the Administration being caught "proactive" and already engaged in dealing with a problem that's been taking place. So Bush bears a lot of responsibility for things that he may not be personally to blame for.

The buck stops at the President.

I agree to a certain extent, do you think Bush would have been better off with someone besides Rumsfeld as an advisor.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Wow, I was expecting a much more dovish response from you. I certainly agree that we have fought this war with one hand behind our backs. I am old school, if you go to war, you take the country by all means and then you use the spoils of war to pay for the war and to rebuild the country in your own image, not the image of all your enemies. Unfortunately the enemies uses ALL means at their disposal, including disinformation, and the deceived in our country.

BTW you know very well that the Dems and the media are not wanting to withdraw so that we can get tough with Iran, but you make the best case for withdrawal that I have heard.

If we're too bogged down with Iraq we'll not be capable of responding to Iran. Iran is a definite threat. An even greater threat than Iraq ever was. We need our troops out of Iraq because IF Iran does something stupid...Democrats won't invade Iran...Democrats will strategically strike her with cruise missiles and stealth bombers. Republicans seem to like conventional ground wars. Democrats seem to like air power and surgical strikes. The question is...who's strategy will really be able to deliver something that will leave the Arab world with something to think about?

Personally, in my opinion, I trust the Democrats to deliver the message without bogging our troops down in a nation building experiment in a region where we're not really wanted and facing never ending waves of insurgents.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I agree to a certain extent, do you think Bush would have been better off with someone besides Rumsfeld as an advisor.

Yes. Didn't Bush choose Rummy?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Wow, I was expecting a much more dovish response from you.

I think this is the most dovish approach. A long drawn out ground war, as we have seen, could have no end in sight. Also the casualties on both sides will be high.

Strategic surgical strikes using cruise missiles, stealth bombers, Massive Ordinance Air Bombs, or even tactical nukes would result in loosing far fewer American lives and would more likely cause nation states funding terror to frantically eliminate terrorists in their boarders or cooperate with allowing us to eliminate them. Of course...VERY deep and sound diplomacy would be needed before such action. Right now...sadly, I don't think we'd get the support. But had Bush sought permission to use ALL means necessary right after 9/11 most of the free world would have supported us. I think Bush made a colossal blunder with how we've responded to terror and fought this war.