A soldier's viewpoint

[lookout123]

tw, i'm not saying that you are lying or have sought to deceive anyone. there may very well be support for your claims. i would like to see that support if it exists. you might take comfort in your theory that i am a blind and foolish bush supporter, but you would be wrong. i am a realist. i want the real unspun facts gathered from the actual sources rather than facts as filtered through the childhood game of "telephone". we won't always agree on the correct course of action based on the info at hand, but we should always be able to discuss what the facts are without it becoming some sort of emotional pissing match.
i hold a world view that is definitely in the minority in the cellar, yet i spend a lot of time here. why? it's not because i'm a hannity/limbaugh sycophant or a bush/cheney disciple. i like to see a lot of info, from differing views because this helps me to constantly shift and adapt my view of the world. if i was the type of disciple of bush that you describe, i wouldn't be able to absorb and accept ideas that people like HappyMonkey, Glatt, and Hot_Pastrami argue. the reason that they are able to sometimes bring people to their view is that they aren't insulting and condescending in what they post. they answer questions with specific, precise replies usually with links to their sources. what they don't do is lash out at anyone who dares to question them.

Originally Posted by lookout123

i like to see a lot of info, from differing views because this helps me to constantly shift and adapt my view of the world. if i was the type of disciple of bush that you describe, i wouldn't be able to absorb and accept ideas that people like HappyMonkey, Glatt, and Hot_Pastrami argue. the reason that they are able to sometimes bring people to their view is that they aren't insulting and condescending in what they post. they answer questions with specific, precise replies usually with links to their sources. what they don't do is lash out at anyone who dares to question them.

I don't want to get into it between you and tw, either way. However, just for myself, I'd like to thank you for the little reminder about being polite and substantiating one's facts. I have a tendency to loose my temper (bet you never guessed!), and I don't like it when someone does that to me. I'll do my best to be more civil around here, maybe even to you, as well!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Had a thought.
After the first Gulf War, the people in the middle east must have been impressed at the awesome display of power we presented, the carnage of that column fleeing Kuwait and the speed of our victory.

After this debacle in Iraq, they must be thinking, the mighty USA ain’t so tough. They(we) can be bitch slapped and eventually beaten. Driven out of their sacred land with our tails between our legs.

I know all about the relatives of “collateral damage” becoming terrorists on a revenge trip, but more than that. Has Bush’s mishandling of this war actually given the terrorists a boost by convincing recruits that maybe they are joining a potential winner rather than a suicide squad?

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I'll do my best to be more civil around here, maybe even to you, as well!

George Jr and his Project for a New American Century political agenda has literally undone in 3+ years everything that America stands for since WWII. Upcoming is a very serious election. Clearly the reelection of George Jr will have severe and long time consequnces for every American - especially American soldiers who will suffer with those consequences. I have great fear of these consequences literally with everything I read. And I am reading more and more about this - a most dangerous president - every month. He even just sat there for seven minutes in a FL classroom as America was under attack. He waited to be told what to do. This President literally has undone decades of work that made the world stable. This from just too many of America's best people. This from too many of the best in science, politics, and military study.

George Jr literally undid all the work by Jimmy Carter and Kim Jong-il to bring a country chock full of extremists back into the world community. Having undone all that work, there is no doubt that N Korea now must go nuclear. Thank you George Jr. Only an irresponsible N Korean leadership would avoid nuclear weapons considering 1) the introverted perspective of his Kim's top people and 2) because George Jr has already listed countries that the US will attack. We now know George Jr (actually his people who control the puppet) cannot be restrained even by the American public, the UN, the world, or any other reasonable people. US has demonstrated that it intends to unilaterlly attack Iraq (done), Iran (probably next), and North Korea. N Korea must go nuclear - thank you George Jr.

I cannot wish for a worse group of leaders to hold nuclear power. The North Koreans who provide Kim Jung-Il with his power are some of the most introverted in the world. They will be nuclear empowered because George Jr outrightly and ignorantly destroyed all the work of Jimmy Carter, et al.

US will probably attack Iran next. Troop movements, military base construction, and changes being imposed on world treaties (including the elimination of verification inspections) all suggest that war will be next. If Iran is not bluffing, then the invasion of Iran will go nuclear. Again, Iran would be remiss to avoid making nuclear weapons because George Jr has an attack list - the axis of evil.

If these are not enough, George Jr did as European foreign minister predicted. He undermined the Oslo Accords; replacing them with what is a joke - the roadmap for peace. That roadmap is only so that Americans without news sources (the classic George Jr supporters) actually think George Jr wants peace. More destruction to what America and the western world spent generations working to avoid.

Just a few of many reasons why George Jr is bad for the world. All this nonsense about whether Franks was angry is to avoid those hard questions. And so we have hard questions that George Jr supporters fear to answer. The consequences of reelecting George Jr are exampled in this post. That means soldiers gets stuck with consequences of right wing extremist agendas. When confronted with hard questions, the president's supporters again obfuscate the post. Lookout123. Posted are THE questions - making Gen Frank's anger a classic example of avoiding those questions. Answer the questions. You can't because those questions demonstrate how dangerous this president really is.

Lookout123. Answers those hard questions. You avoid those questions because you are a strong George Jr supporter. You will not even answer one question - when are we going after Osama bin Laden. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over. Yes, long term consequences mean that much instability, death, and destruction would be created by this mental midget, extremist president.

A reelection of George Jr is that dangerous to every one in every country. Those who support the mental midget president will not even say when we will go after bin Laden. A damning question that George Jr supporters fear to answer because it exposes presidental incompetance. Notice not one who favors George Jr will even answer that question. Damning evidence. Presidental incompetance that has not been seen since Richard Nixon. Lookout123. Answer the questions.

Bottom line point - he cannot answer. Instead he avoids those questions with nonsense about General Frank's well justified mini-explosion. Anything to avoid talking about presidental incompetance.

Posted here is a serious concern for the soldier and what he will see. When I advocate war (ie the rescue of Kuwait), then I first and foremost advocate a problem that soldiers can really solve - and be proud of what they do. Therefore I ask hard questions that supporters of George Jr fear to answer.

[lookout123]

Instead he avoids those questions with nonsense about General Frank's well justified mini-explosion.

an entire post again demanding answers to questions that, although valid, weren't the source of contention in this discussion.

tw, can you, or can you not provide support for your claims? if not, just say so and we'll move on to another discussion. if yes, then enlighten me - i want to know.

as far as all of your questions you keep hammering at me? what do you want? is it important that you see me post yet again that i don't think Bush is the best choice in america for president? that i think his battle plans were flawed? that the execution was poor? that Bush & Co have made many errors? that OBL should be a higher priority?

ok. no big deal. those are all things that i have posted about it in the past.

this whole putrid thread has been about nothing more than you refusing to admit that you may have gone a little overboard in your claims about Franks' anger. i asked you for support documentation. you got pissed and lashed out and have repeatedly argued all these other points that i don't believe need to be argued. i agree with you on more than you are willing to admit but you wouldn't know that because you've got some misguided idea that to admit you made an error would lower someone's estimation of your intellect. when, in fact, just the opposite is true. every person on this board has admitted at some point or another that they were arguing an incorrect point. everyone except you. in the past i have backed away from several arguments with you in the name of goodwill. not this time though, i will stay in this little pissing match with you even though i and everyone else in the cellar have been bored with it for a couple of days.

so i ask you again; do you have any support for your claims (other than woodward's book) that Franks was furious about his orders to prepare a commander's concept updating 1003 on Nov 27th, 2001, 20 days after operations began in afghanistan?

[404Error]

I don't want to get in the middle of this pissing match either, , but I've noticed that TW keeps posting the statement that Saddam was not a threat to anyone.

Saddam was a threat to no one.

I think the Kurds that he gassed in his own country would beg to differ on that point. Also the people of Kuwait whose country Saddam invaded and set their oil wells afire would find exception to that statement.
What brought me to speak up on this was a piece on the news this morning, Fox News, where Kerry was quoted saying, "Saddam Hussein was a threat." in a mini press conference yesterday.

Just my .02 cents, carry on the pissing!

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

an entire post again demanding answers to questions that, although valid, weren't the source of contention in this discussion.

Quoted was one source that General Franks - as any general would have done - had a mini-explosion when ordered to plan for an Iraq attack before Afghanistan was even invaded. Your counter proof - you could not find any such outburst mentioned. Therefore it did not exist? But then this has been answered to a brick wall again and again.

Attached to and ignored in that original post are far more important and serious questions. Questions that George Jr supporters must avoid answering. We are talking about a president so bad - so incompetent - that nuclear war is a real possibility. A president that is currently trying to eliminate verification from international arm treaties. Lookout123 refuses to defend this danger to world security? This president that makes Americans the number one target of terrorism.

Again you avoid answering even a simple question - when are we going after bin Laden? Avoid these answers to mask the incompetence of this president. Attached to these questions are answers that say this president would even lie in order to create a war. That is impeachment material. When are we going after bin Laden? Are George Jr supporters so ill informed that they cannot answer that one question about current events? Are they so mentally deficient that they even believe Saddam was an active threat to his neighbors? Even the retired generals said Saddam was contained. Yes he was a threat that was totally contained. Where does a contained threat endanger anyone? It does not. Saddam was a threat to no one - meaning other nations.

Sorry that you are being made the poster boy. Notice not one supporter of the mental midget and therefore anti-American president is willing to answer these questions either. Notice once we go for hard questions, then there is not one George Jr supporter even willing to show us how little he knows about this liar president. Bottom line - only the ill informed would vote for George W Bush - outright lying president and front man for Cheney, Rice, et al. The president who let bin Laden go free and instead blamed Saddam. Those who would vote for such proven liars must be either deceived, mislead, or uneducated. People who fear to even answer simple questions about competency of this president and about a presidental threat to the troops.

Clearly I have struck gold. George Jr supporters fear to defend their man because they cannot. Not one is even willing to answer one simple question.

When do we go after bin Laden? Don't ask George Jr. He starts talking about Saddam. Don't ask George Jr supporters. They fear to answer. Lookout123's missing responses - asking about Gen Franks mini-explosion to obfuscate more important questions - tells us much about those who endorse George Jr - a proven liar.

These are damning questions. The only thing putrid about this thread is that George Jr supporters fear answering hard questions so they don't have to lie. Questions such as when will we go after bin Laden?

[lookout123]

ever feel like you're on a merry-go-round?

tw, if you bother to read my posts at all, you would see that my take on things comes from Tommy Franks own book American Soldier, a number of interviews with Franks and his subordinates which make no reference to him losing his temper, and i've googled and otherwise searched for this event to no avail.

you are the one that referenced numerous articles that described this event so surely you must be able to provide proof of your position. what you're suggesting is that i provide proof that something didn't happen. that is fairly difficult because the media doesn't generally write stories with headlines stating General Tommy Franks Did Not Lose His Temper Today, there aren't any interviews where he is asked "Gen Franks - why didn't you lose your temper on Nov 27th."

does this make any sense to you? tw, you certainly wouldn't accept this type of debate from someone else on the board - so why should it be acceptable from you?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

ever feel like you're on a merry-go-round?

Of course you are. George Jr is a spin doctors dream. And you are playing the spin doctor game. Tommy Franks had a mini-explosion as any responsible general would have when all but ordered to let bin Laden go free. But that is irrelevant. Clearly you cannot answer important questions. So you masterbate on whether Tommy Franks got mad - to avoid answering hard questions. Its called spin. Ted Koppel says, "you did not answer my question so I will ask it again".

When do we go after bin Laden? Who was George Jr waiting for to tell him what to do ... for seven miniutes ... in a FL classroom? Lookout123 fears to admit the president did not even ask "Who is in charge". No sense discussing that example of presidental decision making. It demonstrates what a fool this president really is. So Lookout123 repeats the irrelevant so that others will never get an answer. Nothing condescending in that sentence, Lookout123. It is exactly what you are doing. Avoiding the hard questions by masterbating the irrelevant. When do you return to reality? When will we go after bin Laden?

We literally invaded another sovereign nation for no legitamate reason. Lookout123 loves it. We let the enemy of America go free. Lookout123 approves of that also (notice he will not deny it). Lookout123 wastes good bandwidth quoting Tommy Frank's book. A book Franks said he would not use to offend the administration. IOW a book written to be politically correct rather than honest. Does his book answer important questions? Does it ask when we will go after bin Laden? Please feel free to answer important questions. Quote the book if you must. Or did Franks also forget to answer that question. Lookout123, if you can stay on topic for just one paragraph - when will we go after bin Laden?

Lookout123 will avoid those previously posted hard questions because they suggest we should be impeaching George Jr - for incompetance. There is too much money to be made when Geroge Jr provides tax cuts to those earning over $200,000 annually. Lookout123, are you also happy that bin Laden is running free? Apparently. Since you fear to answer any real world questions, maybe then you are bin Laden.

[depmats]

Maybe you two should just pull out a ruler and measure your dicks. Or grenades? Maybe we can get each of you a grenade and whoever causes the most damage to the other wins. It would be faster and less annoying than this endless contest.

It is pretty amusing that the guy who posts the longest, most detailed, apparently well researched posts on this entire board keeps arguing the same points that he does in every single thread - George, Jr lied. Alright then, next question please? I've been following this thread for a few days waiting to see TW crush Lookout with the facts that he has been asked for repeatedly.

But what the hell do I know? I'm just a no good, no nothing. I'm down to writing my own name on the ballot.

[lookout123]

still no answer? i'll wait if you're searching.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Who was George Jr waiting for to tell him what to do ... for seven miniutes ... in a FL classroom?

As much as I dislike him, I can't jump on this bandwagon. My gut tells me they told him bad shit was going down and they'd tell him more as soon as they had a handle on what was happening.
Can't picture Bush donning a cape and leaping to the bridge of Air Force One any more than I'd expect him to grab a tool box if the White House pipes break. Although, if they'd known ahead of time exactly when and where this would happen, Geppetto,...er,..Rove would have told him what to do.
During the debate, I kept getting the feeling Bush wanted to say things he'd been told not to, so he didn't.

I'd very much like to Bin Ladin nailed, but I wonder how important that is now. Of course the revenge would be sweet, but is he as big a player as he was. Maybe his job was done when he got the conflict off the ground and his associates are running their respective units now. He (or Bush?) has stirred a slew of other "leaders" to press their followers to confrontation rather than just grumbling about the Jews and "West".
If we get Osama there's a risk of making him a martyr but if we don't, his peers will feel we are incapable of getting him or THEM.

[Undertoad]

We could focus on those seven minutes. Or we could focus on the hard questions. TW prefers not to focus on the hard questions so he uses a lot of name-calling and invective and emotional appeal.

If Centcom is asked to draw up a war plan do they get "angry"? Or is that an obvious emotional appeal, since Generals are asked to draw up war plans ALL THE EFFING TIME, IT IS WHAT THEY DO. Isn't it possible that Woodward wanted an interesting narrative for his book?

Do you not think we have a plan to invade N Korea? Drawn up by Eastcom or whatever that sector is called? Do you think Centcom doesn't have an Iran plan on the table? Of course. They had an Iraq plan too, they just wanted it updated to reflect the current thinking. (And then they depended too heavily on getting rights to go through Turkey so it was a faulty plan from day one.)

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

still no answer? i'll wait if you're searching.

Lookout123 demonstrates the knowledge and intelligence level of George Jr supporters who also says (lies) the world is safer because we invaded Iraq. Pakistan President Musharraf, clearly a long term expert on this subject, tells us quite bluntly this week that the US has made the world more insecure because we invaded Iraq. Even the entire panel on the McLaughlin Group does something rare - they agree entirely that the Iraqi invasion has made the world less safe.

Donald Rumsfeld admits there were not connections between the terrrorists and Iraq. Bremer admits he was denied sufficient troops by George Jr. Charles Duelfer report confirms what everyone knows - that George Jr was outrightly lying about Saddams Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Obviously. Mr. Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, said NBC's "Today," Saddam Hussein "had a lot of intent; he didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat." Or as the retired generals say, he was a threat that was totally contained. A diminishing threat.

Scott Ridder said same. Therefore UT called Scott Ridder a pervert and child pornographer. This is how George Jr supporters make the world safer? No wonder Lookout123 focuses on Frank's mini-explosion - to obfuscate the facts.

Lookout123 need not provide a single reason to support George Jr. He actually read a book about the world - Frank's 'politically correct' autobiography. Since Tommy Franks never mentions the reported mini-explosion, then that is proof that George Jr is an acceptable president?

When do we go after bin Laden? It is in Lookout123's personal interest (aminority that prospers from George Jr tax cuts) to not answer any serious questions such as: Why does George not read his memos and Presidental Daily Briefings? Why would George just sit there in a FL classroom, doing nothing, when America is under attack? Anyone interested in America (rather than their own pocket) would be fuming that George Jr did not even authorize fighters go 'weapons free' - to protect American buildings during 11 September. That from the September 11 Commission report. George Jr instead waited for someone to tell him what to do. Decisive leader? Lookout123 will tell us when he finishes Tommy Frank's book.

Lookout123 needs no facts. He is the classic George Jr supporter who just 'feels' he is correct - and therefore the world is safer. Ladies and Gentlemen. Lookout123 has no credibility - unless of course he dares answer hard questions here: Posted 7 October 2004

He won't. That is not the point. Lookout123 demonstrates why George Jr has supporters. But then Lookout123 finally read something - Tommy Frank's book. That makes him knowledgeable? Well at least he reads more than George Jr. But if Lookout123 answers, then we will discover Lookout123 has no knowledge when he recommends George Jr. Lookout123 wants us to make him richer.

In the meantime, when do we go after bin Laden? Lookout123 cannot even answer that question - hoping that others here will have sympathy for him. Do you feel a vote for the president - or do you ask hard questions? Lookout123 provides no supporting facts which is why his posts are so short and why he must hype on Tommy Frank's mini-explosion. Answering this simple question is too hard: when do we go after bin Laden? Rich people don't answer hard questions. Just like George Jr. - who avoids press conferences where he might be asked, "When do we go after bin Laden?"

Lookout123 - when do we go after bin Laden? Or are you bin Laden? Your interests are same - to keep George Jr in office.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We could focus on those seven minutes. Or we could focus on the hard questions. TW prefers not to focus on the hard questions so he uses a lot of name-calling and invective and emotional appeal.

When Scott Ridder said there were no weapons of mass destruction, then you called him a pervert and child pornographer.

Those seven minutes in a FL classroom prove what too many say about George Jr. He does not make decisions. Again, as Bob Woodward reports, "The president kicked everyone out of the Oval Office but Cheney. ... The others came back in. Finally at 7:12 PM, the president said, "Let's go." It was three minutes before Frank's deadline. Powell noted silently that thing didn't really get decided until the president had met with Cheney alone."

We know from the September 11 report that George Jr in FL had trouble contacting Cheney. Therefore Air Force One sat motionless on the runway in FL until finally the Secret Service demanded the plane take off now and decide where to go later. Where to go? George Jr waited for Cheney to tell him what to do. Tell me those seven minutes in a FL classroom don't expose how decisions are really made. The president could not even testify before the September 11 Commission without Cheney at his side. This is a decive leader? No wonder he need not read his memos. Those seven minutes in a FL classroom only confirm decisive George Jr leadership - waiting to be told what to do.

So those seven minutes of not authorizing fighter pilots to go 'weapons free' is not important? Seven minutes just sitting in a FL classroom, doing nothing; waiting to be told what to do while "America is under attack". George Jr never even authorized the military to defend America.

Please explain how this president is competant. And please explain how Scott Ridder went from being a responsible human being to becoming a pervert - only because he told the truth about WMDs. Unfortunately, this is the reasoning used to advocate "Four More Years ... in Iraq".