The Buck Stops ... There.
POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Monday, November 6, 2006 05:06
VIEWED: 4508
PAGE 3 of 5
LOL. Bush is like Lincoln...
How many incompetent generals did Lincoln go through before he got to Grant? Yet Rummy stays til the end.
Lincoln intentionally surrounded himself with people who disagreed with him so he could get all the information possible.
Lincoln said, "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" Can you imagine Shrub even comprehending such a concept?
Party of Lincoln. Gimme a break.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Rumsfeld runs everything from D.C., he's too disconnected, and out of touch. If he relies on what his generals are saying, those who are in country, he's passing the buck.
Ya left out options 3 and 4.
(3) He could go over there, live in the Green Zone, patrol with the troops, get shot at, then make decisions based on what he personally sees and knows.
(4) He could actually ask the Generals what they think, and then do what they want, instead of asking them if they need anything else, when the trained response to that is, " No, SIR! Can do, SIR!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I would have placed it at roughly half- almost the number that voted for that nimrod Prez we have. It's somewhat comforting to know that an additional 20%, even showing marked signs of sociopathy, didn't vote that way. They may have been a little crazy, but they weren't stupid.
Originally posted by marina:
somewhere around 70% of the US population shows marked signs of sociopathy.
I suppose at that rate it's no wonder that the people in charge (at all levels) have no social conscience...
Thanks for the info, Marina.
Sociopathic Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Marina- Could you provide more info on your study?
But I think you've got it bass akwards- the people are showing signs of socipathy because the leaders have created a system that excuses/ rewards their own sociopathy.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURAPTOR
Quote:But you forgot option No 5!
If Rumsfeld runs everything from D.C., he's too disconnected, and out of touch. If he relies on what his generals are saying, those who are in country, he's passing the buck.
If Rumsfeld is running everything from DC and BLAMES the generals for his failures, then he's passing the buck.
How can you have failed to see this possibility? Hmmm... let me guess... you got this talking point from Rushed Limbo?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CARTOON- Oh, yeah, everything's going great in Iraq
Quote:Seems like credible field experience....
In an article for Military Review, Lt. Col. Carl D. Grunow wrote that "without steadfast American support, these officers and soldiers will likely give up and consider the entire effort a lost cause."
Grunow recounted his experience of 12 months as the senior adviser to an Iraqi army
Quote:This really tells the story of how things are going in Iraq.
armored brigade in Taji, north of Baghdad. His stint ended in June. The article in the July-August issue of Military Review is titled "Advising Iraqis: Building the Iraqi Army."
Grunow found and grappled with several problems during his experience.
... Grunow also found that Iraqi soldiers were using techniques and tactics from the Iran-Iraq war, when there were "clear battle lines fought with mass military formations, and one in which civilians on the battlefield were a nuisance, not the center of gravity."
He contrasted the new Iraqi army with the one under ousted ruler Saddam Hussein.
"Iron discipline was the norm under Saddam. The lowliest lieutenant could expect instant obedience and extreme deference from his soldiers," Grunow wrote. "Today's army is very different. Unlike Saddam's, the new army serves the cause of freedom, and officers and soldiers alike are a bit confused about what this means."
Iraqis, he said, are "horrendous at keeping track of their soldiers. There are no routine accountability formations, and units typically have to wait until payday to get a semi-accurate picture of who is assigned to the unit. Because Iraqi status reports are almost always wrong, American advisers have taken to counting soldiers at checkpoints to get a sense of where combat power is distributed."
Grunow praised the Iraqi skill in dealing with a tough environment. He said that "economic sanctions and austerity have made the Iraqis outstanding improvisers" and they "display great ingenuity with maintenance operations."
One trait of Iraqis is that they are "fatalistic, surrendering their future to the will of Allah. This explains how they can continue to function despite daily car bombings, atrocities and murders that have touched nearly every family."
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This really tells the story of how things are going in Iraq.
PARIS (Reuters) At the start of a week-long visit to France, Talabani rejected suggestions Iraq had descended into civil war and accused the media of focusing exclusively on negative stories.
Apparently, the President of Iraq disagrees with the nay-sayers, also.
Also, it's too bad we can't see how the troops currently stationed in Iraq will be voting in next week's Congressional elections. But then, I'm sure if it were determined (as I suspect) that they voted enmasse for the Republican party, that someone would simply imply that they were merely "stupid and ignorant". Oh wait, someone already has done that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Lincoln's army lost a whole lot more men, too (more in an hour than we've lost in 3 years in Iraq) -- for a war a lot of people in the North would just have well given up on.
And Lincoln was hated in the south for nearly a century afterwards.
I'm just glad that Lincoln didn't run the war by poles of public opinion, and that neither is Bush.
My only question about this comparison is: wasn't the American CIVIL war a "house divided." Namely, one nation at war with itself (though granted half of the nation was attempting to become its own). Whereas the war in Iraq is, whether you like it or not, a war of invasion. Direct US interests (such as citizens) were involved in Iraq before the military went in. Even now, how many American citizens are inside of Iraq and not there as part of the military, the press, or other such organisation due to the war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon, R9 asked for what was going right, obviously you can't do that so the best thing for you to do is admit that you were wrong, or as I suspect is the case admit you are lying.
Oh look there's no link for that cite, what a surprise...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huh, fomr dbl posts to invisible posts....
CARTOON: OF course Maliki is going to say everything is going great. So did Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Curchill. So does Bush. Do ya think a leader is going to say "We're doomed"? You show a fearsome lack of imagination.
As far as the troops are concerned: I have no idea how they're going to vote. But of the Iraq war vets who're running for office this term, the vast majority are on the Dem ticket.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME