I would very much like you to click on this link and read this article here:
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/international/middleeast/
20marines.html?pagewanted=print)
I have been, am, and always will be a soldier. As a soldier, a Noncommissioned Officer and leader I was trained to take care of my soldiers. Mission first and soldiers always. These soldiers were doing their duty and they weren’t being taken care of. As a soldier this article makes me sick. As a human being this article makes me sick.
You may ask what this has to do with BS in the spin cycle and George W. Bush. Well it has this to do with him. He has been on a week’s long PR campaign and putting BS in the Spin Cycle to sell a war he started through deceit and under false pretenses and would now have us believe he started it in order to create a democratic government in the Middle East and set the Iraqi people free. Even more directly it has to do with him because he is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States and these soldiers were in Iraq without the proper equipment because this George W. Bush chose to invade a country against the advice of top military advisors (firing six senior General officers who spoke up and voiced concerns.) and without enough troops to win the war and keep the peace and without proper equipment to protect our soldiers. By the way they still have a shortage of body armor and armored vehicles. These things individually or combined constitute dereliction of duty and that makes George W. Bush in violation of his oath of office.
Speaking of violations of the law let’s let that lie where it is and move on to a few more equally interesting violations of the law. At this link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/) you will find that Jonathan Alter has laid out the facts quite clearly and there is little or no doubt in my mind that the president has violated the law and is now trying to cover it up through intimidation if not coercion. It is up to our Congress to take this to hearings and an investigation. What will it take to force this Congress to do its job? They are so preoccupied with covering their own crimes and misdemeanors that they can’t do the oversight that they are constitutionally charged to do.
Those Are The Sergeant Majors Thoughts On That.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Do your homework....those Generals were not fired.
Not a very constructive comment since I know several of them personally. Do your homework friend.
I apologize to anonymous for my curt comment. You had no way of knowing that I know those gentlemen. You can click on the link to my web page and see my bio and that will give you some of my background.
yeah, anon 'fired' is a vague word, so bring on your proof.
From a precursory review of the article I see that – a) we need MORE troops in Iraq, b) CONGRESS needs to provide adequate equipment for our troops, c) women generally don’t need to be in combat zones (or the Marines need to change their rules that barred the women from sharing living quarters with the men).
I sited this article as an example only. My point is when you make the tactical mistake up front you lose lives unnecessarily. Regardless of the reason(s) for entering the conflict the president was told up front that we were going in to Iraq with too few troops (50,000) (He was actually told we would need ‘at least’ 200,000 troops.) to handle the mission. He was also told that we did not have the correct types and numbers of armored vehicles and we did not have sufficient amounts of body armor required for the mission. He made the decision to go anyway. Later when we were loosing troops as a result of the armor mistake the company that produces them stated that "we could produce at least an additional 100 vehicles a month but no one has asked us". Bottom line is that with the correct number of troops up front and with the armored vehicles and body armor required to simply accomplish the mission hundreds if not thousands of lives could have been saved. Additionally we could have in all likelihood have maintained control of the country and saved thousands of civilian lives and been much farther along toward establishing a functioning government and withdrawing the 150,000 targets we have walking around that country. If your going to do the correct or incorrect job you can at least do it right.
Since you say is necessary to win, you must support sending more troops to Iraq. Interesting.
I think you're mistaken. I was quoting one of his military commanders.
You were quoting him as an authority; someone who knows what is necessary to win and deserves credibility.
Either you don't want the US to win in Iraq or you want to have it both ways - complain about a problem but not support the solution (a common tactic of the Democratic party lately).
You sir are taking my comments out of context. And to use your apparent tactics I'll say "A common neo-conservative maneuver to win when there is nothing to win". I was not stating my opinion or position in the text you quoted. Also please stop trying to put me in a pigeon hole. My opinions are my own and not that of a political party. In the text you are quoting I was quoting a General who was advising the president and nothing more. I have clearly stated my position on this war numerous times in previous posts. I am against the war in Iraq and I believe we should pull out of Iraq. It is my opinion that we have won the armed conflict of armies and we are now embroiled in an insurgency that will continue no matter how or when we leave and will continue after we are gone. We are not now nor have we ever been properly equipped to fight and insurgency thanks to a president who obviously doesn’t know military tactics or foreign diplomacy. We are now operating a terrorist training ground. I believe we should leave Iraq in the most orderly and tactically practical manner possible leaving the Iraqi’s to determine their fate. I served two tours for my country in Vietnam and that was a total Democrat led fiasco. We do not need another one led by Republicans. In my opinion the Iraq war is no more justified or necessary than was the Vietnam war.
You're assuming a lot of stuff... my gender, for one. I acknowledge you're not a member of either party. I was just stating you're using tactics that are common with the Democratic Party; you share similarities.
Generals/military advisors say need more troops
Bush ignores
US goes to war
US wins war
You were quoting a general who was advising the President. If you don't agree with him or believe his comment supports your point of view, what was the purpose of quoting him?
Were the military advisors you quote in your original article the same ones who said there would be 10,000 US casulties during the intial stages of the war?
And I strongly disagree with your statement "A common neo-conservative maneuver to win when there is nothing to win."
If anything, it is the liberals (Democrats) who have turned into an art twisting and shaping comments to suit their agenda.
Anonymous,
I'm not commenting to start an argument, but i don't quite understand what you mean by some of your comments, one being:
"Either you don't want the US to win in Iraq or you want to have it both ways"
I'm not sure what you're refering to. First, what do you mean by "win" in Iraq? And second, what do you mean by wanting it "both ways"?
Also, I wasn't clear on this comment:
"- complain about a problem but not support the solution (a common tactic of the Democratic party lately)."
It seems to me from what I've read here that it isn't a matter of not supporting the solution, but rather a difference in opinion on what that solution is or should be.
Just trying to fully understand your perspective. Thanks.
I apologize if my gender referral was inaccurate but I'm not accustomed to carrying on a conversation with an "anonymous" and my military training and upbringing was very effective and I often use the term “sir” as a formal reference. I guess I need to train myself in the Sir/Madam terminology when conversing with an "anonymous". At any rate I think I've stated my position clearly and there is no further need to stack BB's.
Post a Comment