johnc Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 This was a reply/comment to an article that slammed Bush for the mistakes the US military has made in Iraq: "I am stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes: It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders. But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless. One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq). There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars. Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win. Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest importwerks.com Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 How does he know how Kerry would react in a situation. Is he some kind of psychic. Cute story, but thats all it is. A story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poundz9oh9 Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 How does he know how Kerry would react in a situation. Is he some kind of psychic. Cute story, but thats all it is. A story. Yeah, a story from a soldier on the ground. I thought Kerry has made it clear that he wouldn't have reacted the same way. In fact wasn't he the one suggesting that he would have kept trying the diplomatic approach. Where would we be 10 years from now with such a push-over in office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 "Where would we be right now with such a pushover in office?" Funny, All you have to do is rewind the tapes to 1992-2000 while old Bill Clinton was getting his knob polished in the oval office, and buckling under the weight of world pressure to tow the UN Party line! A: I'm all for getting a BJ, But come on... You're the most powerful man on planet earth, Spring for a HOT chick, not a FAT chick... B: Kill 'em all and let god sort them out... No, I'm sorry, but Mr. Kerry looks like a taller, thinner, duller version of the 8 years we had with Clinton! Much like the 70s and Disco, I'd like NOT to repeat that, thank you very much! Mike "Who is no longer sitting on the fence" Kelly 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poundz9oh9 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Way to go old man!!!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poundz9oh9 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I don't dispute the fact that Kerry may have taken care of business back in the day. However......fighting out of necessity in a combat environment and sitting behind a desk pointing and clicking are two different things. The eight years of "peace" we had during Clintons era was probably a big reason why we as a country are dealing with the things we are today. Say you have an infant wolf who at the time is harmless because of its young age ..... What happens to that wolf if you let it age into adulthood? It trains itself, it grows stronger and becomes a devastating and cunning killer..... I know this shephard wouldn't wait for that wolf to kill my sheep... Strike first, strike hard!! All the way Sir, Airborne!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 The truth is we don't know what would have happened if we had waited longer, prior to invading Iraq or who would do what in the same situation (as much as we would like to believe that we do). In fact no one knows if we matched the "70/30" solution in Iraq. Many war supporters feel we had an 90/10 match, and many opponents think we've started with a 40/60 match. Yeah, the 70% makes sense, but it in no way can it be assumed that we've met this solution (which I realize you are not proposing here John). None the less, this story rings true to a certain degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 and eight long years of PEACE 1992 - Israeli Embassy destroyed by car bomb in Buenos Aires, Argentina; 29 die. 1992 - Eight Protestant builders killed by an IRA bomb on their way to work at an Army base near Omagh. 1993 - World Trade Center bombing 1993 - 13 bombs, mainly packed in cars, go off in Mumbai, India, killing 257 people and wounding more than 1,100. 1993 - IRA bomb in Warrington kills two children. 1993 - IRA detonate a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate, killing two and causing approximately £350m of damage. 1993 - A bomb at a fish and chip shop on the Protestant Shankill Road, Belfast kills 10 people, including two children. 1994 - Bombing of Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina kills 86 and wounds 300. 1994 - Baruch Goldstein machine gun attack on mosque in Hebron. 1994 - Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by GIA members who planned to crash the plane on Paris but didn't succeed. 1994 - A small bomb explodes on board Philippine Airlines flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Authorities found out that Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack. 1995 - Operation Bojinka is discovered on a laptop computer in a Manila, Philippines apartment by authorities after an apartment fire occurred in the apartment. 1995 - Tokyo Sarin Attack 1995 - Oklahoma City bombing 1995 - Bombing of a US military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 1996 - A series of four suicide bombings in Israel leave 67 dead and 161 wounded within 10 days. 1996 - Centennial Olympic Park bombing, killing one and wounding 111. 1996 - IRA break their cease-fire and kill two in a bomb at the Canary Wharf towers in London. 1996 - Manchester bombing by IRA 1996 - Khobar Towers bombing 1998 - Two U.S. embassy bombings 1998 - Omagh bombing by the so-called "Real IRA" kills 29. 1999 - Gunmen opened fire on Shi'a Muslims worshipping in an Islamabad mosque killing 16 people injuring 25. 1999 - David Copeland nail bomb attacks against ethnic minorities and gays in London. 1999 - Ahmed Ressam is arrested on the US-Canada border in Port Angeles, Washington; he confessed to planning to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport as part of the 2000 celebration terrorist attacks plot 1999 - Jordanian authorities foil a plot to bomb US and Israeli tourists in Jordan and pick up 28 suspects as part of the 2000 celebration terrorist attacks plot 1999 - Indian Airlines Flight 814, which just took off from Kathmandu, Nepal for Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi, India is hijacked, one passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released 2000 - The last part of the 2000 celebration terrorist attacks plot fails, as the boat meant to bomb the USS The Sullivans sinks 2000 - Beginning of a campaign of attacks on civilians in Israel - see Terrorism against Israel in 2000. 2000 - USS Cole bombing 2000 - German police foil plot to attack a cathedral in Strasbourg, France Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 But hey, terrorist attacks only occur on the Republican's watch, right? John, you are a GOD when it comes to sifting this data... Nice work! Mike 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 20, 2004 Author Share Posted October 20, 2004 To change the subject a bit... Remeber this recent quote from John Kerry: "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life." Here's where it didn't work and why it won't work again: http://techcentralstation.com/102004B.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaparral2f Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Is ther anyone here besides me that doesn't believe the sun rises out of Bush's A$$? Clinton lied about getting a wind job, and years later you people are still moanin' about it. Wouldn't you lie if you were doin' the nasty and didn't want your wife to find out? Or have I wandered into the "We Are All Saints Here and Have Never Transgressed" thread? (If you say that all you guys are as pure as the driven snow, You're probably lying!) How do you feel about the almost $50,000,000 bucks to bring the said carnal act to light. Oh, that's cool right? After all, Clinton was a Liberal. I mean I never hear anyone complaining about that little waste of money. Bush on the other hand seemed to have no problem lying about WMDs, Sadam and the uranium, Iraq and its connection with 911. And the list goes on. If I remember correctly wasn't it on W's watch that one of his stooges, probably Carl Rohe[sp] outed a CIA operative to a so called journalist named Novak? Didn't we send a guy named (Elliot?) Abrams to prison for doing that a few years back? Maybe Clinton was a one of those low life non-patriotic Democrat, but when the Trade Center was bombed, the perps were caught and put away, as was the jerk who did Oklahoma city. All I hear from Osama Ben Ashcroft's quarter is how they had to release the ones they caught because of faulty prosicution. But what can you expect from an attorney general who lost an election to a dead man. I really don't like George, but then you probably have already guessed that. But don't wory, I wouldn't call him a Faciest. After all they said that Musolini made the trains run on time. Yeah, I know, "America love it or leave it". But my family has taken part in every armed conflict since (and including) the french and indian war. And none of them ever: 1. Joined the Texas Air guard. or 2. took 6 different deferments because they "had other priorities". Even though this rant will probably get me banned, sometimes you just gotta say what needs to be said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Chaparral, You have clearly wandered into "We are all saints" territory when it comes to one's character... Sorry, But I have a HUGE problem with someone who would have multiple affairs on his wife, lie about it to the people who put him in office, then own up to it ONLY when it was obvious that the evidence was insurmountable... We're talking about character and integrity here... These are things I want MY PRESIDENT (And let me remind you that I VOTED FOR THE SCUMBAG, TOO!) to have... If that doesn't bother you, then that is your opinion... But to me, if he is lying to his wife and covering those kinds of issues up, what will he lie to ME or YOU about... In something so trivial as running the most powerful nation in the world The $50 Mill spent to bear out the facts of his discretions? GEE, had he NOT conducted himself in SUCH a manor while PRESIDENT of the United States, then the country wouldn't have had the burden of that expense... But, as with many things liberal, let's pass the results of his actions and the resultant blame onto the republicans... That makes PERFECT sense.... To a Liberal! As for accusing anyone here of lying about having an affair on their spouse, or covering it up if they did... I'm certain that that comment would offend others, because it pisses me off reading it... Ummm I can say with 100% Certainty that I will N-E-V-E-R in my lifetime have ANY type of intimate relations with ANY woman outside of the marriage to MY WIFE. I've seen the effects another mans indiscretions left behind after years of lies and infidelity. My step-children are CONSTANTLY left confused by his examples, and I won't even get into the emotional scars my wife was left with... I'm 110% certain that I will be able to keep my hormones in check... You're free to live your life the way you choose and pay the consequences. But to assume others would do so and accept it as "OK" is unimaginable and offensive. As for your claims that Bush Lied about WMD and the other issues, I'm not gonna waste my time on this subject again... You believe what you want... Bush isn't that smart... LIBERALS seem to think that he is, which is Comical! As to the outting of that CIA "Spy"... Again, Media twists stories into the wind... That SPY's husband was a democrat who'se nose was out of joint... It was all partisan politics... No one was found GUILTY of anything, and the individual in question was actually accused of not protecting her own cover to well... It was apparently well documented that she contributed to her own compromise of cover, but I wouldn't know anything about that, just what I read in the media... because they are so damned accurate in reporting facts without misrepresenting the truth with their own politics or hidden agendas! But go ahead and read the herald, the times, and the daily, oh and don't forget the BBBBBEEEEEPPP Post (From GGL's radios Show) to get your dose of liberal media LIES... Bahahahahahahaa.... Sheeople wandering to the heard... Mike (The not so conservative independant) Kelly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I am still mad at Clinton BECAUSE of the 50 million they spent investigating him. All moral issues aside he should have known better from a strictly political point of view. He didn’t show the office the respect it was due and we as a country had to pay the price. And no, I don't think anyone agrees with Bush 100% (hell, even 70%). But the way election year spins go, people take things to extremes. And one last thing about Kerry's military service. I don't think anyone should ever have to apologize for serving their country. Kerry did his time and did what he was ordered to do. We should do nothing but thank him for that. But at the same time, that guy was only in Vietnam for 4 months before his third purple heart became his ticket out. That raises a lot of questions in my mind. The guy is no Sergeant York so he should quit trying to sound like one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 I didn't really have a problem with Clinton, his policies (once he put a leash on Hillary's health car thing), or his actions until he got his cabinet (Albright, Gore, Ruben, etc.) to stand up and say that he didn't get a hummer from Monica. I remember all of them standing together in a group with Bill and Hillary at a press conference defending him against the accusation. He lied to them and set them up to look like fools. To me, that's inexcusable. If Bill had said, when the accusations first surfaced, "Yes, I got a hummer from Monica and I'm sorry." it would have become a tempest in a teapot. I would have shrugged my shoulders and said, "Power has its priviledges (sp)" and continued to like the man. He did a good job as president. In hindsight, he didn't pursue terrorists as hard as he should have, but neither did Bush, Sr., Carter, Reagan, or Bush, Jr. (until 9/11). Now, Gore scared the crap outta me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I am still mad at Clinton BECAUSE of the 50 million they spent investigating him. They? Who were "they"? What was motivating it? The search for truth? I think not. Nothing in Washington is investigated for it's truth, anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I am still mad at Clinton BECAUSE of the 50 million they spent investigating him. They? Who were "they"? What was motivating it? The search for truth? I think not. Nothing in Washington is investigated for it's truth, anymore. So you understand the realities of life in the big white house. Just wish Clinton had understood that before doing what he did. He should have known what a diversion such a controversy would create, so how could he have felt it was worth it? And if he didn't know or simply didn't care, then he is an idiot and derserves such contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Exactly... And if it had been a repulblican, we'd have still incurred the cost of $50 Million to investigate who'se DNA was left on what dress, and what Bimbo tape recorded what messages... None of us can say that this would have played out differently had it happened to the other party... And for the record John, I was a Clinton Supporter right up until that very issue with Bill marching them out on parade to support him... Only to be lead to believe he was beeing set up... Only to be proven that he just lied to everyone... I could have put up with him getting it in the White House, solong as he was honest and upfront about it when it happened... but to lie about it so much, giving one on one interviews and demanding that "I DID NOT have sex with that woman!" We'll maybe she isn't... Maybe she is a "MAN BAYBAY (Austin Powers overdub there).... Who knows... the whole process sux... And I'm still looking for my candidate... But being left with the lesser of two evils, and still hoping for that nuclear war/ bombardment of the middle east... Yea, Bush kills people... I can hang my vote on that ticket I suppose... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aaron Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I heard an interesting interview with Dick Morris this morning on the radio. He was on the show to hype his new book about Clinton, "Because he Could". It was interesting to hear from someone who knew the Clinton's telling a little of what went on. He said that Bill Clinton's greatest talent is being able to read people. Supposedly, Bill can walk into a room and know who likes him, who doesn't, and why. He claims that Bill's worry was what people thought of him. He said Hillary loves Bill, and Bill loves Bill, but Bill is afraid of Hillary. He said Bill would not publicly own up to the afairs because Hillary would not let him, even though he (Dick Morris) and other advisers told him to admit it and get it over with. He also said Bill's foreign policy suffered because of this. According to Dick, the CIA worked for months to track down bin Ladin and we had the chance to aprehend him, but Bill called off the operation because he was afraid that bin Ladin might be killed and other UN nations would not approve. When we made the cruise missle attacks, Bill tipped off the Packistani government so they would not misinterpret the strikes, and they tipped of bin Ladin and he left within hours of the strikes. This and more is supposed to be in the book, I may have to get it and read it. I have never liked NAFTA (even though I was not even in the workforce when it was signed) and I believe it is a major reason we have the outsourcing issues and loss of manufacturing jobs we have had in the last 6-8 years. It is one of my largest complaints against the Clinton years. I believe that virtually any president's economic policies take years to have any effect. Many (if not most) of them have no effect because of the cyclical nature of the free market economy. In my view, Bill Clinton was able to balance the budget because of tax increases and major cuts to the military. Yes we no longer need a military the size we had built up during the cold war; however, I believe that the cuts went entirely too deep and severly hindered our ability to gather and digest intelligence around the world and take appropriate action. Every president (except Washington) has had to deal with the repercussions of the one before him. Some are handed rose gardens, some are handed thorns, some are good gardeners, some are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaparral2f Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 But at the same time, that guy was only in Vietnam for 4 months before his third purple heart became his ticket out. That raises a lot of questions in my mind. Yeah, I guess that you could say the same thing about Max Cleland. After all, he came home early. If you look at the crap that was used against Cleland in Georgia, it looks a lot like the swift boat campaign. As does the attacks on McCain during the primary season. Either I smell Carl Rove, ofrelse i stepped in something and have to go clean my shoes. Let me guess, the liberals did that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 77vegasz Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 We as a nation have forgotten that war is an act in which calculated guesses based on intellegence is used. The intellegence is not perfect, the judgements are not correct all the time. Look at the disaters that occured during the Normandy invasion ans the casualty rate there, but it succeeded. People die in war. It is a fight of sacrifices made by the few for the good of the finger pointing may that sit at home and play Monday morning quarterback. We need to stand united as a country, we need to stay on course in our war on terrorism, even if mistakes are made. We need to send the terrorists and other nations of the world the message that we will support out administration, stay the course and fight for our way of life, and our safety throughout the world. All the political finger partisanism, and second guessing our government is sending the message to the world that if you inflict some pain on us, and broadcast some grizzly pictures on CNN you can defeat our will as we have become a nation of liberal wimps that are unwittingly weakening ourselves against the radical Muslim faction that is slowly infiltrating the world. They already have Spain under their thuimb, who is next? If we do not stand the course as the worlds largest and strongest power, who will dare fight them? Just my two cents. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.