Army Officer: Generals Failing Us In Iraq

#2
#2
If the army didn't have to be so dang politically correct because of our liberal media, we would have already been out of Iraq if we could have used FULL FORCE.
 
#3
#3
I don't think PC behavior was even considered when going into Iraq and even after Saddam. Don't even blame this on PC behavior. If PC behavior drove this you wouldn't have seen issues with GITMO, Tilman's death, Abu Ghraib, etc.
 
#4
#4
g8terh8ter_eric said:
If the army didn't have to be so dang politically correct because of our liberal media, we would have already been out of Iraq if we could have used FULL FORCE.
Click to expand...

They were only getting their orders from the President. He would rather appease the leftists and terrorist sympathizers than actually win a war.
 
#6
#6
Tell me specifically how he has appeased the liberals. Give me examples of him doing anything to appease liberals in this. I've never seen him back down to liberals on this Iraqi situation. In fact, he's been quite stubborn and gave little ground on anything.
 
#7
#7
One of the few topics that CSpin and I can agree on.

For all of you who state we would have won had our hands not been tied...you obviously need to read LTC Yingling's article, in the AFJ.
 
#8
#8
Someone needs to see how cold Hell is because these moments are few and far between...:)

It's good reading and from a credible source. I just wonder since he didn't have approval to make these comments how soon he'll be in civvies...
 
#9
#9
CSpindizzy said:
Someone needs to see how cold Hell is because these moments are few and far between...:)

It's good reading and from a credible source. I just wonder since he didn't have approval to make these comments how soon he'll be in civvies...
Click to expand...
He won't. The 3 ACR is heading back to Iraq in mid September. With the "Brave Rifles" previous record in Iraq, nobody in the III Corps is going to remove LTC Yingling.
 
#10
#10
CSpindizzy said:
Tell me specifically how he has appeased the liberals. Give me examples of him doing anything to appease liberals in this. I've never seen him back down to liberals on this Iraqi situation. In fact, he's been quite stubborn and gave little ground on anything.
Click to expand...

How about not second guessing our Marines everytime they fire their weapons? How about giving our guys the benefit of the doubt whenever allegations from the enemy are made?
 
#13
#13
allvol123 said:
Are Iraqi citizens allowed to walk the streets openly displaying firearms?
Click to expand...

Their constitution allows for the right to bear arms. The bad thing is no one knows who the normal citizens are versus the terrorists until it is too late.
 
#14
#14
CSpindizzy said:
Their constitution allows for the right to bear arms. The bad thing is no one knows who the normal citizens are versus the terrorists until it is too late.
Click to expand...

Seems a hell of a tough way to wage a war. Seems to me these are the types of reasons people consider Bush soft and liberal leaning in his stances, the whole "winning the hearts and minds" of the people mumbo jumbo.
 
#15
#15
Considering he was the voice of bringing democracy to the region and giving them close to what we have, I don't think that would be considered liberal. Allowing the right to bear arms is not really liberal is it? Strange it isn't in this country.
 
#16
#16
allvol123 said:
Seems a hell of a tough way to wage a war. Seems to me these are the types of reasons people consider Bush soft and liberal leaning in his stances, the whole "winning the hearts and minds" of the people mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...
The "winning of hearts and minds" is the only way that a foe can ever succeed against an insurgency.
 
#17
#17
CSpindizzy said:
Considering he was the voice of bringing democracy to the region and giving them close to what we have, I don't think that would be considered liberal. Allowing the right to bear arms is not really liberal is it? Strange it isn't in this country.
Click to expand...


I knew you were going to make that comment and understand what you are saying. But the fact is this situation is called "The Iraq War" when in reality it is more of a nation building/occupation to help. Allowing people to bear arms that are walking right past you on a daily basis that most certainly want to kill you could be considered a rather liberal stance.
 
#18
#18
allvol123 said:
I knew you were going to make that comment and understand what you are saying. But the fact is this situation is called "The Iraq War" when in reality it is more of a nation building/occupation to help. Allowing people to bear arms that are walking right past you on a daily basis that most certainly want to kill you could be considered a rather liberal stance.
Click to expand...

Actually Bush should have taken the 'liberal' stance and ripped up every firearm that could be found. Every depot containing weapons should have been bombed or seized. Borders should have been sealed. The 'liberal' stance would have been to NOT include the right to bear arms and ensured the people did not have these means to continue the insurgency. Just replace the liberal position in this country with the one in Iraq.
 
#19
#19
Seeing this little wall debacle in the metropolitan Baghdad area makes me think this will soon just lead to full civil war and probably the partition of Iraq. We publicly state we will not do this but seeing moves like this wall to separate religious factions equates to Berlin, Belfast, etc.
 
#20
#20
George W. and Runsfeld are weak leaders. They didn't recognize the problem with most of the Generals and didn't replace them. Bush didn't want to replace Runsfeld at one point.
 
#21
#21
Replacing also can appear as weak. Saying the message you've been driving home for years wasn't right afterall and the players you've sworn up and down were the right ones now having to leave shows weakness as well. Essentially it comes down to image vs. reality.
 
#22
#22
CSpindizzy said:
Actually Bush should have taken the 'liberal' stance and ripped up every firearm that could be found. Every depot containing weapons should have been bombed or seized. Borders should have been sealed. The 'liberal' stance would have been to NOT include the right to bear arms and ensured the people did not have these means to continue the insurgency. Just replace the liberal position in this country with the one in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The method used appears liberal in the sense that it allows the enemy that could be standing right in front of your face to adhere to no rules, to be given free reign. I agree with your ideas of seizing all weapons. But not doing so seems a very liberal stance in this arena.
 
#23
#23
From the politicians perspective it honestly looks as if those up top were still fighting in a Cold War mentality where they thought once an oppressive regime is toppled the people as a whole would line up and support their newfound democracy. But just as what happened in Yugoslavia, an authoritarian regime suppressed forces of instability in all aspects. Take that authoritarian regime out, you have religious, cultural, etc. differences that a democracy cannot hold back. Free speech is not a viable expressive option for people being blown up in the market place. Seeing family members and friends die tends to generate a vengeful attitude rather than one where they stand before Parliament and voice their differences. Even stopping the violence completely will not erase mindsets of people who have been warring or sparring for centuries.
 
#24
#24
therealUT said:
He won't. The 3 ACR is heading back to Iraq in mid September. With the "Brave Rifles" previous record in Iraq, nobody in the III Corps is going to remove LTC Yingling.
Click to expand...

BRAVE RIFLES!!! VETERANS!!!! YOU HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED IN FIRE AND BLOOD AND COME OUT STEEL!!!!!!!!!" (General Winfield Scott, to the 3rd Cavalry, the Regiment of Mounted Riflemen, after combat in the Mexican War)

Sabre Ready!!!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top