KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 How the hell is it my fault you assumed I was talking about Afghani politics and society when I was talking about the American effort? Or is this just some bull sh-- face-saving attempt by you to try and admit you were wrong without actually saying you were wrong? 650922[/snapback] It is your fault for pointing out that he was wrong. Bad monkey...bad monkey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Hypothetically, even if I were to stipulate that (which I wouldn't, as any halfwit should have been able to discern I was talking about command and control)...that still doesn't explain why you interpreted it as something I never even mentioned. How the hell is it my fault you assumed I was talking about Afghani politics and society when I was talking about the American effort? Or is this just some bull sh-- face-saving attempt by you to try and admit you were wrong without actually saying you were wrong? 650922[/snapback] I didn't say it was your fault that I mistook the precise issue you were talking about. Its not uncommon for misunderstanding happen to normal people. Gonna keep going after the red meat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I didn't say it was your fault that I mistook the precise issue you were talking about. Its not uncommon for misunderstanding happen to normal people. Gonna keep going after the red meat? 650934[/snapback] A misunderstanding is when I say "I like cheese" and you hear "I have to sneeze". When I say "If there's a CIA field commander in a military op, it's !@#$ed up" and you read "Afghanistan is !@#$ed up because of the people that live there" because you're too thick to twig on the key words "field commander" and "military op", that's not a misunderstanding, that's a plain and simple lack of reading comprehension skills (or lying...but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you're simply dense). Which again gets back to what I've been saying: there's a difference between reading about Afghanistan and understanding what you read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 As BiB mentioned, the troops are running the show in Afghanistan. Criticizing their accomplishments or lack thereof is criticizing them. 650927[/snapback] That assumes that they get the resources they need to do the job. I've questioned whether or not they have received those resources. I've based that upon Bernsten, Naylor and some other authors. But Jeez o Flip if you suggest anything negative about Bush on this board some people go nuts. Bernsten is actually profuse in his praise of Bush and considers the Ranger issue a blemish on a masterpiece but if the guy finds one flaw he is dismissed or piloried. but you were too busy trying to deflect things to Clinton (and lying about what people said) and were not paying attention. I wasn't trying to deflect things to Clinton. I don't even like the guy and used examples of his "leadership" as to why I didn't buy into the Democratic documents. I was, however, pointing out that he has frequently been criticized for not providing assetts that were requested on a military mission. There are many ways to deal with this. One could disagree that Clinton was responsible in Somalia and remain consistent. One could come up with a rational on why Clinton's mistake was more egregious. There may be others, but to say that one administration can be blamed and another can not seems two faced to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 A misunderstanding is when I say "I like cheese" and you hear "I have to sneeze". When I say "If there's a CIA field commander in a military op, it's !@#$ed up" and you read "Afghanistan is !@#$ed up because of the people that live there" because you're too thick to twig on the key words "field commander" and "military op", that's not a misunderstanding, that's a plain and simple lack of reading comprehension skills (or lying...but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, and assuming you're simply dense). 650938[/snapback] No, my point was that given the !@#$ed up nature of Afghanistan, and for that matter all its neighboring countries, we had a rather unique war, during the course of which you can find !@#$ed up situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 I'm still back on page 6 or so trying to figure out the how I'm building a cocoon around Bush, because Franks denied a request for a bunch of Marines, that then got described as Franks falling on his sword in order to deflect blame, which also isn't anywhere near what even Bernsten said. In a more serious vein, right or wrong Commanders and their staffs get multiple things from the field in a constant stream. They have to develop the common operating picture. I don't have anything against Bernsten. But, he also wasn't the only guy involved on the ground. Neither was he in a position to know the full COP from the CENTCOM perspective. People write first person accounts from their perspective. That's why they are called first person accounts. Somewhere down the road responsible historical types gather as much data as they can from as many sources as they can, and history gets written. If they do a decent job, the post mortum usually can point out who did what, when and why, and whether it was a good call or a bad call. Franks was getting multiple requests for available reserves. His 3 shop needed to weigh a vs b vs c and make calls. Committing reserves is a major step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 That assumes that they get the resources they need to do the job. I've questioned whether or not they have received those resources. I've based that upon Bernsten, Naylor and some other authors. But Jeez o Flip if you suggest anything negative about Bush on this board some people go nuts. Bernsten is actually profuse in his praise of Bush and considers the Ranger issue a blemish on a masterpiece but if the guy finds one flaw he is dismissed or piloried. I couldn't care less whether Bernsten praises Bush or not. You wanted to address an item and I addressed it. Then you B word because the response is not in line with yours. Jeez o Flip. God forbid people use their brains to form opinions instead of using the opinions of others. I wasn't trying to deflect things to Clinton. I don't even like the guy and used examples of his "leadership" as to why I didn't buy into the Democratic documents. I was, however, pointing out that he has frequently been criticized for not providing assetts that were requested on a military mission. There are many ways to deal with this. One could disagree that Clinton was responsible in Somalia and remain consistent. One could come up with a rational on why Clinton's mistake was more egregious. There may be others, but to say that one administration can be blamed and another can not seems two faced to me. 650958[/snapback] It is not two-faced as BiB pointed out. The fact that you ignored what he had to say because it did not fit your agenda is disingenuous. Just look at your comments on Franks and this proves me correct. Bernsten criticized Bush: Good. Franks did not: Bush apologist just falling on his sword. BiB did not: trying to build a cocoon around Bush, trying to protect him. I couldn't care less what your opinions of Clinton are since they really have absolutely nothing to do with this argument. The fact that you brought him in made your point meaningless because, as BiB pointed out, the campaigns were executed differently. If you cannot see that, then there is no point in discussing this further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 No, my point was that given the !@#$ed up nature of Afghanistan, and for that matter all its neighboring countries, we had a rather unique war, during the course of which you can find !@#$ed up situations. 650960[/snapback] And once again...we're back to the "CIA field commander" didn't get Army resources because the Afghanis - er, the entire region now - is !@#$ed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 In a more serious vein, right or wrong Commanders and their staffs get multiple things from the field in a constant stream. They have to develop the common operating picture. I don't have anything against Bernsten. But, he also wasn't the only guy involved on the ground. Neither was he in a position to know the full COP from the CENTCOM perspective. People write first person accounts from their perspective. That's why they are called first person accounts. Somewhere down the road responsible historical types gather as much data as they can from as many sources as they can, and history gets written. If they do a decent job, the post mortum usually can point out who did what, when and why, and whether it was a good call or a bad call. Franks was getting multiple requests for available reserves. His 3 shop needed to weigh a vs b vs c and make calls. Committing reserves is a major step. 650966[/snapback] That makes sense. Ergo, you're a Bush apologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I'm still back on page 6 or so trying to figure out the how I'm building a cocoon around Bush, because Franks denied a request for a bunch of Marines.... Franks was getting multiple requests for available reserves. His 3 shop needed to weigh a vs b vs c and make calls. Committing reserves is a major step. 650966[/snapback] All that being said or granted, Franks, Rumsfeld or whoever put the limits on these decisons didn't have enough foresight to understand the ramifications or adjust after they became clearer. Sounds like a lot of technical b.s. for excuses to avoid admitting they screwed up. Even General Zinny this weekend described these decisions as strategic, not tactical mistakes and therefore at the door step of Rumsfeld and Franks. The interview I saw with Franks this weekend and the continued impression I get is that he is no more than a powerless mouth piece for Rumsfeld and says and does what he is told. He has got to be hatin life, because I get the impression he knows he is a sucker, yet he doesn't quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 I'm actually stunned it took this long for someone to drag in Zinny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 The interview I saw with Franks this weekend and the continued impression I get is that he is no more than a powerless mouth piece for Rumsfeld and says and does what he is told. He has got to be hatin life, because I get the impression he knows he is a sucker, yet he doesn't quit. 651035[/snapback] Tommy Franks retired about two or three years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 Tommy Franks retired about two or three years ago. 651037[/snapback] Wesley has been rumbling as well. Notice how the military "we are tough on national security gang" from the late 90's is pulling the wagons together? Smart moves on the Dem's part. Show's somebody is thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 And once again...we're back to the "CIA field commander" didn't get Army resources because the Afghanis - er, the entire region now - is !@#$ed up. 651030[/snapback] No we aren't. Your just being obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Wesley has been rumbling as well. Notice how the military "we are tough on national security gang" from the late 90's is pulling the wagons together? Smart moves on the Dem's part. Show's somebody is thinking. 651044[/snapback] Zinni is, or at least as of the last election was, a Republican and a frustrated one at that. He pointedly refused to endorse Kerry in the last election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Wesley has been rumbling as well. Notice how the military "we are tough on national security gang" from the late 90's is pulling the wagons together? Smart moves on the Dem's part. Show's somebody is thinking. 651044[/snapback] My point being, though, that if Armadillos saw Franks last weekend and thought he was being Rumsfeld's mouthpiece and wanted to quit...he's badly mistaken, as Franks doesn't "want to" quit, he has. But on the subject of pulling the wagons together...how many people are going to notice that the retired generals during the mid-term elections are going to be divided precisely down partisan lines? Good thing generals are unbiased, apolitical creatures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Tommy Franks retired about two or three years ago. 651037[/snapback] I stand corrected, he was trotted out to give a rebuttal to Zinny this weekend, shoot thought he was still there, sounds like it, he keeps acting like things are going well and that only small mistakes have been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Tommy Franks retired about two or three years ago. 651037[/snapback] His legacy it tied to the decisions he made while he was serving. Do you really expect him to change his tune now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 Zinni is, or at least as of the last election was, a Republican and a frustrated one at that. He pointedly refused to endorse Kerry in the last election. 651051[/snapback] I was thinking more along the lines of who was where when. Politics can make for strange bedfellows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 My point being, though, that if Armadillos saw Franks last weekend and thought he was being Rumsfeld's mouthpiece and wanted to quit...he's badly mistaken, as Franks doesn't "want to" quit, he has. But on the subject of pulling the wagons together...how many people are going to notice that the retired generals during the mid-term elections are going to be divided precisely down partisan lines? Good thing generals are unbiased, apolitical creatures... 651052[/snapback] I doubt it with Zinni. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts