Ghost of BiB Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 That the Commander in Chief is responsible for what happens under his command? That principle applies to Captains in the Navy. They are relieved for mistakes happening under their command whether they have the watch at the time of the mistake or not. As for the OPLAN, when do you break from the OPLAN? If your intelligence sources on the ground who paid and are working directly with your surrogate army tells you that your surrogate army is unreliable and not anxious to engage the enemy, is that a good time to break from the OPLAN? We could have a discussion about mistakes in Somalia and who was responsible for what. I'd probably agree with you on many mistakes attributable to Clinton but I believe that is best left to another thread. However, if Clinton was more heavily involved in Somalia, which you describe as a sidebar, than Bush was in Afghanistan, which was a war we had to fight after over 3,000 of our citizens were killed, that doesn't say much positive about either administration. 650064[/snapback] You're right. Bush is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 You're right. Bush is bad. 650086[/snapback] No, he isn't bad. He's not responsible for anything that happens under him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 No, he isn't bad. He's not responsible for anything that happens under him. 650090[/snapback] You be the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 You be the man. 650129[/snapback] Word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Word. 650371[/snapback] Guess you won't answer the question I posed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Guess you won't answer the question I posed. 650402[/snapback] What is the point? BiB already addressed it, but since it does not coincide with Bernsten's view, you automatically dismiss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 What is the point? BiB already addressed it, but since it does not coincide with Bernsten's view, you automatically dismiss it. 650410[/snapback] That wasn't the question. That was hardly the point I made. Bernsten was but one source and one instance. But hey, why address it? You might actually have to be consistent if you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 That wasn't the question. That was hardly the point I made. Bernsten was but one source and one instance. But hey, why address it? You might actually have to be consistent if you did. 650416[/snapback] If that makes you feel better, go with it. The point I was making was already addressed. If it was too difficult for you to understand, go back and re-read it. Bush Bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 If that makes you feel better, go with it. The point I was making was already addressed. If it was too difficult for you to understand, go back and re-read it. Bush Bad. 650424[/snapback] I don't need to re-read it. If someone wants to make a case that Clinton was worse, fine. What you and BIB want to say is that Bush can not be criticized for anything related to Afghanistan and to do so is to blame the troops. All the two of you want to do is say Clinton Bad which hardly differentiates you from the Bush Bad crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Typical PPP discussion. Step 1. Ignore the points made, attack the person making the points Step 2. Find a scape goat Step 3. Innoculate the discussion with "Bush Bad" and other assorted one liners. I'm sure the back slap society will be here soon to add some hot pockets and dings for you. 649951[/snapback] Bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I don't need to re-read it. If someone wants to make a case that Clinton was worse, fine. What you and BIB want to say is that Bush can not be criticized for anything related to Afghanistan and to do so is to blame the troops. All the two of you want to do is say Clinton Bad which hardly differentiates you from the Bush Bad crowd. 650446[/snapback] Where did I say anything about Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Where did I say anything about Clinton? 650450[/snapback] I asked you questions directly related to Clinton. BiB responded. Your response was to read BiBs response. If his views are not the same as yours, answer the question yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Where did I say anything about Clinton? 650450[/snapback] I don't recall you saying anything about Clinton. But, as Bib's lackey... I guess it is just assumed. Scraps bad! Got any aliases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 OK. Someone tell me what I'm supposed to say. My original response is that anyone should be open to criticism, just be sure that balanced information is used to form it. Balanced means one side says good thing, other side says bad thing. Something could even be somewhere in the middle. The questioner tries to find and analyze the varying viewpoints to form their own picture. When points of view are developed based solely on one or the other, they are simply echoing one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I asked you questions directly related to Clinton. BiB responded. Your response was to read BiBs response. If his views are not the same as yours, answer the question yourself. 650453[/snapback] BiB said: In Afghanistan, the people on the ground ARE running the operations. There is one very specialized task force in particular working there that has basically free reign. Outside of certain diplomatic issues involving Pakistan, Washington pretty much stays out of it. So, maybe Ken has a point. Iraq as I said, is a different animal. Iraq's problems are more political than military. Afghanistan's are still more military (and covert type ops) than political. Point out where Clinton is mentioned in this, or are you pulling a Mickey and just making sh-- up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 OK. Someone tell me what I'm supposed to say. My original response is that anyone should be open to criticism, just be sure that balanced information is used to form it. Balanced means one side says good thing, other side says bad thing. Something could even be somewhere in the middle. The questioner tries to find and analyze the varying viewpoints to form their own picture. When points of view are developed based solely on one or the other, they are simply echoing one or the other. 650463[/snapback] You are just a Bush-loving, bin Laden lapdog, neo-con liberal, so what do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I don't recall you saying anything about Clinton. He must have Mickey disease. Got any aliases? 650455[/snapback] Not recently. It has probably been at least a year since I messed with an alias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 BiB said:Point out where Clinton is mentioned in this, or are you pulling a Mickey and just making sh-- up? 650464[/snapback] In the original question I asked, which I have repeated below since you have such a hard time going back and seeing it Can you show me where the Democrats are criticizing the troops in Afghanistan? Why isn't it legitimate to criticize the administration for failing to provide either troops, equipment or unified command to succesfully prosecute the war in Afghanistan? Is it okay to criticize Clinton for Somalia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 OK. Someone tell me what I'm supposed to say. My original response is that anyone should be open to criticism, just be sure that balanced information is used to form it. Balanced means one side says good thing, other side says bad thing. Something could even be somewhere in the middle. The questioner tries to find and analyze the varying viewpoints to form their own picture. When points of view are developed based solely on one or the other, they are simply echoing one or the other. 650463[/snapback] You seem to imply that the sources I used were not balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 In the original question I asked, which I have repeated below since you have such a hard time going back and seeing it Can you show me where the Democrats are criticizing the troops in Afghanistan? Why isn't it legitimate to criticize the administration for failing to provide either troops, equipment or unified command to succesfully prosecute the war in Afghanistan? Is it okay to criticize Clinton for Somalia? 650478[/snapback] And I said yup. As you said, probably good for another thread, but a lot of people are still pretty bitter over how that went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts