in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[Infinity]

Originally posted by AEON


Perhaps. Quotes like this are a bit disturbing:

"I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people, like my sister over here says, since we first stepped on this continent, we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bullshit to my son and my son enlisted. I’m going all over the country telling moms: ‘This country is not worth dying for.’

I would never have let [Casey] go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have. The people are good, the system is morally repugnant.

They’re a bunch of f**king hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up. We need a revolution!"

I don't think they are that very disturbing. They speak the truth.

[Infinity]

Originally posted by AEON


Anyone demanding a revolution to overthrow the US government is a threat.

This is a democracy. She has every right to protest against the government. It seems like people like you (neo-cons) are the greater threat to freedom and democracy.

[Irvine511]

and we're STILL not talking about Iraq!

maybe we can start to blame Jane Fonda for something, after all, she singlehandedly defeated US troops in the Mekong in 1971 and caused us to lose the war.

we all did see those pictures of Sheehan throwing grenads in Fallujah and sniping in Karballah. the woman must be stopped! she's defeating our troops! what a traitor!

[DaveC]

Originally posted by AEON


Anyone demanding a revolution to overthrow the US government is a threat.

I'm a threat.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by AEON


It is not the job of the soldier to understand the entire reason he or she is being sent into battle. They are given a mission. The "why are we there" question is to be answered by those that send the soldier into battle (Congress and the President)

That being said, I am quite certain this general believes that his mission in Iraq is legal and moral. However, he is unable to draw a direct parallel between his mission and the overall safety of America because that is quite frankly WELL beyond his scope of responsibilities.

You must admit - this man is not an idiot. He was 5th in his class at West Point and has a PhD from Princeton - not something to ignore. He is wise to admit that his focus is Iraq.

Sorry, but this line of thinking, especially if you are the leading general in an operation like the Iraq war is very risky.

"I'm just a soldier doing what I got told to do, without thinking myself", is what got many countries, mine included, into deep trouble.
Blindly following your leaders and not thinking for one second about the country you are meant to serve and protect, not the President or his friends, shouldn't be the soldiers task in these days.
A man with a degree from Princeton and being the fifth best of his class in West Point should be wise enough to assess the big picture on his own, don't you think?

[DaveC]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega




Sorry, but this line of thinking, especially if you are the leading general in an operation like the Iraq war is very risky.

"I'm just a soldier doing what I got told to do, without thinking myself", is what got many countries, mine included, into deep trouble.
Blindly following your leaders and not thinking for one second about the country you are meant to serve and protect, not the President or his friends, shouldn't be the soldiers task in these days.
A man with a degree from Princeton and being the fifth best of his class in West Point should be wise enough to assess the big picture on his own, don't you think?

Indeed.

Saying that the "just following orders" mentality applies to the Commanding General of an entire war is absolutely foolish.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Bluer White


Losing Iraq to AQ/Iran would make us considerably less safe....no matter our foolishness that caused this whole mess.

and so that's why the subtext of Petraeus's testimony is to lay the groundwork for a war against Iran.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by DaveC


Indeed.

Saying that the "just following orders" mentality applies to the Commanding General of an entire war is absolutely foolish.

it gets us to My Lai.

[AEON]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega




Sorry, but this line of thinking, especially if you are the leading general in an operation like the Iraq war is very risky.

"I'm just a soldier doing what I got told to do, without thinking myself", is what got many countries, mine included, into deep trouble.
Blindly following your leaders and not thinking for one second about the country you are meant to serve and protect, not the President or his friends, shouldn't be the soldiers task in these days.
A man with a degree from Princeton and being the fifth best of his class in West Point should be wise enough to assess the big picture on his own, don't you think?

Like Deep said, he can't speculate on something as vague as the overall safety of the country. He is mission focused. He is about facts and figures.

Additionally, there is nothing blind about his service. I would imagine his daily responsibilities dwarf anything most of us will be assigned in our entire lifetime.

(btw - it is not just a degree from Princeton, it was a PhD)

[AEON]

Originally posted by Irvine511




it gets us to My Lai.

You are missing the part about moral and legal. He has every right as an American officer to disobey an unlawful or immoral order.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by AEON


You are missing the part about moral and legal. He has every right as an American officer to disobey an unlawful or immoral order.

we're missing the forrest for the trees here.

why are we in Iraq? what is to be gain by "the surge"? why is Petraeus not being held accountable for the clear failure of the central goal of said surge -- political reconciliation? all that's going to happen so far is that the surge is going to end, and we'll be right where we were at the end of 2006, none of the goals achieved, but with much more wasted blood and treasure. our present forces are too small to actually subjugate a population, but large enough to enrage the rest of the Muslim world. it is making us less safe, and Petraeus knows this, but he can't say this, so he ducked the question

it seems to me that we have two options:

1. the surge is not working, and in order for it to work, we must send in 300,000 troops and fully occupy the country; all you kids out there, get ready to be drafted

2. the surge is not working, political reconciliation is impossible, so it's time to withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices.

instead, we're choosing option 3: stall, and run out the clock, pass it on to the next administration, and then spend the rest of your life talking about how the surge just wasn't given enough time and we were "stabbed in the back" by murderous revolutionary Cindy Sheehan, the woman who toppled an empire in the Middle East. the surge was designed to give the Bushies the opportunity to say, "see, if we'd just stayed a little longer, we would have won," and those who grew up under the illusion of the invincible American Army (and by conventional terms, it is, but these are not conventional operations).

i thnk we are looking at a proxy war. if forced to choose, the US will side with the Sunnis against the Shiite controlled government that's controlled by Tehran. we're going to get a civil war that's a stand-in for a US vs. Iran, and that's going to spread throughout the Middle East.

and how ironic. for posters who were so *obsessed* with the threat that Saddam posed to the precious Saudi Arabian oil fields, it now seems as if there's a vastly greater, less containable threat than Saddam. and that's a regional war that the US will be funding, and what's worse, will have taken sides.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by AEON


Like Deep said, he can't speculate on something as vague as the overall safety of the country. He is mission focused. He is about facts and figures.

But it is not something as vague as the overall safety of the country. It is much more precise. As the general in charge of the entire operation in Iraq, it would be wise, especially before embarking on the mission, to take the time to determine whether the mission will increase, decrease or have little effect on our safety, based on the enemy we are fighting. To not do so runs the risk of embarking on missions that may end up decreasing the safety of the country he is trying to protect.

I think, quite honestly, that if the goals were clear from the beginning, the plan was laid out well, the administration was straight with the American people as to the challenges ahead, the surge actually really did what it was supposed to do, then Petraeus should have no problem saying "yes, I believe we are safer because of this." The fact that he couldn't is telling.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by AEON


Like Deep said, he can't speculate on something as vague as the overall safety of the country. He is mission focused. He is about facts and figures.

Additionally, there is nothing blind about his service. I would imagine his daily responsibilities dwarf anything most of us will be assigned in our entire lifetime.

(btw - it is not just a degree from Princeton, it was a PhD)

Okay, PhD, technicalties of the English language I don't know.

Though this wasn't my point exactly. You argued that a soldier doesn't need to know "the entire reason he or she is being sent into battle", talking about Generaly Petraeus, the leading officer of this multi-national force in Iraq. And that makes him more than just a soldier carrying out orders from the politicians back home. This makes him responsible to know exactly what he does, and what it will cause.

A soldier, or a General, should serve the citizens of his country, not the political leaders alone. And this is why he should make up his mind whether the "why we are here" really is answered by the powers that lead him.

But you are probably aware that the US Army and the German Bundeswehr have different philosophies regarding this very topic.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Diemen
I think, quite honestly, that if the goals were clear from the beginning, the plan was laid out well, the administration was straight with the American people as to the challenges ahead, the surge actually really did what it was supposed to do, then Petraeus should have no problem saying "yes, I believe we are safer because of this." The fact that he couldn't is telling.

Originally posted by phillyfan26
Let's say they were fighting al-Qaeda. If someone asked him, "Is this making America safer?" He'd definitely respond, "Absolutely."

The difference is that we're not fighting al-Qaeda.

[Irvine511]

i guess i want to know if supporters of the Bush administration are willing to do what it takes.

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

is getting the hell out really that much worse?

[deep]

Originally posted by Irvine511
i guess i want to know if supporters of the Bush administration are willing to do what it takes.

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

if it were only that simple and that was the cost

and the result was starting a change in the Mid-East for representative governments, free markets, more open governments

and an atmosphere where terrorists find it difficult to operate, recruit and expand?

look at the costs the U S paid in Korea

to answer your question?




the answer would be, yes.

[kellyahern]

^ Funny that you mention Korea.

Originally posted by Irvine511

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

Guess what? It might be longer than that:

Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say

President Bush is looking at the decades-long U.S. troop presence in South Korea as a model for a future U.S. role in Iraq, senior administration officials said Thursday.

More than 38,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea and along the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea more than 50 years after the end of the war on the Korean Peninsula.

Wtf?

[diamond]

Originally posted by Irvine511
i guess i want to know if supporters of the Bush administration are willing to do what it takes.

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

is getting the hell out really that much worse?

I hear ya gf!

Stalin, Hilter and Mao was such better philanthropists!

snap!

dbs

[Vincent Vega]

First apple and oranges from Bush, then from diamond.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by diamond


I hear ya gf!

Stalin, Hilter and Mao was such better philanthropists!

snap!

dbs

What in the hell do they have to do with anything?