PDA

View Full Version : Schwartzkofpt against Iraqi Occupation



Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 05:31 AM
On Larry King, the general was asked if he thought we should have invaded Iraq, he answered, "Well, we had to do something about Iraq" then stopped, and when prompted by King, refused to say anything further. It was obvious, he too, thinks an Iraqi occupation was not the correct course of action to take.

Can you beat it, two experienced generals, (Powell) both knew this was the wrong way to go, and who does Little Bushy listen to? Cheney, Rumsfeld, just to name two in the loop, none of whom have ever fought in a war.

"How Can 40,000.000 Be so dumb?"

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
11-19-2004, 06:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
On Larry King, the general was asked if he thought we should have invaded Iraq, he answered, "Well, we had to do something about Iraq" then stopped, and when prompted by King, refused to say anything further. It was obvious, he too, thinks an Iraqi occupation was not the correct course of action to take.
<hr /></blockquote> It is obvious you are putting words in his mouth.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you beat it, two experienced generals, (Powell) both knew this was the wrong way to go, <hr /></blockquote> Who is the second? Schwarzkoph (sp?) never said that?

eg8r

highsea
11-19-2004, 06:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> On Larry King, the general was asked if he thought we should have invaded Iraq, <hr /></blockquote>CNN notwithstanding, this is a reasonable question.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>he answered, "Well, we had to do something about Iraq" then stopped, and when prompted by King, refused to say anything further.<hr /></blockquote>I think everyone agreed that something had to be done. Stormin' Norman too.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> It was obvious, he too, thinks an Iraqi occupation was not the correct course of action to take.<hr /></blockquote> I understand this. It was not an easy decision, nor an easy course of action. It was a commitment on the level of the Marshall Plan. It's not something you want to leave to a General.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr>Can you beat it, two experienced generals, (Powell) both knew this was the wrong way to go, and who does Little Bushy listen to? Cheney, Rumsfeld, just to name two in the loop, none of whom have ever fought in a war.

"How Can 40,000.000 Be so dumb?"

Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>I don't know whether you are putting forty thousand or forty million out here, but don't you agree that we are already at war? I know you wouldn't have us surrender, so what are our options? Knowing what we know now, of course I wouldn't have invaded either. But we had 10 or 12 years of bad relationships with Iraq before this all started, with a very consistent message from our leaders the whole time. Regime Change. 9/11 made that more imperitive, rightly or falsely so, it's a little late to backpeddle.

So what we have is what we have. There is no one single person we can hold responsible, save maybe Saddam himself for deceiving the rest of the world, which he did very well.

I'm not sure what benefit we get from second guessing the past. I think there will be plenty of time for that when the crisis is past.

Gayle, you know that I would never have ill feelings to you. All of our conversations have been very pleasant. I just wonder where this is going. Maybe, as a personal favor to me, can we put the "little Bushy" part of this to bed? I just think it's disrespectful. If not, I understand, but I think it's silly.

Thanks.

Love,
Casey /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 06:35 AM
Did you see the program Ed? If not, which obviously you did not, perhaps you should try to contain yourself until you can find the "FACTS" which are that it would be obvious to absolutely anyone who was watching, that while he wouldn't put into words how he felt, he did not agree that we should have handled our situation with Iraq by invading.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
11-19-2004, 06:44 AM
Just trying to make sure you don't put words in others mouths, since you hate it so much.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 07:29 AM
Hi, and how are you?
I will try to respond to each of your points.

"I think everyone agreed something had to be done"

First of all, among the Bush advisers who had the most knowlege of the middle east, Powell, for one, and also according to "The Rush to War" Richard Clark, probably the most well informed in the loop, not everyone agreed something had to be done about Iraq at that time. Many were befuddeled when Bush made the sudden "Right turn" towards Saddam, believing that our focus should be complately on alQaeda after 9/11. Although they knew Iraq had to be dealt with, which is what I am sure Schwartzkofpt wea referring to, it was not the time, nor the best way, to "Deal" with Iraq.

"It was a commitment on the level of the Marshall Plan. It is not somehting you want to leave to a General."

Powell was not just a General at that time. Swartzkopft was the man who had the most first hand knowledge of legistics involved in waging war in the Middle ease. Also, had the Bush administration heeded the repeated warnings of the Whitehouse CounterterrorismZar, Richard Clark, before 9/11, instead of being focussed on Saddam instead, many feel that 9/11 was preventable.

I don't agree that there had been a very consistant message from our informed "Leaders" that regime change was the best way to go necessarily, and certainly was not the message after 9/11. Most from CIA, FBI, NSC, were scratching their heads wondering why Bush insisted in linking the alQaeda threat with Iraq.

"Knowing what we know now, I wouldn't have invaded either"

Well, this has been my point all along. Bush refused to listen to those with the most knowledge, but I ask you how would you feel if your only son had lost his life because the president was too bull headed to listen to his own well informed advisers?

"So what we have is what we have. There is no one single person we can hold responsible, save maybe Saddam himself for deceiving the rest of the world, which he did very well."

I don't agree. George Bush is the commander in Chief, I hold him totally responsible, along with Condi Rice (Who wouldn't listen to Richard Clarks warnings either) Dick Cheney.

I would never have ill feelings for you either. I like and respect you and your views. I am very angry about what Bush has done to our country, and to the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, when the United States pays the price for his ineptitude, he and his cabinet and thier families will be tucked safely away in secret bunkers, unlike the rest of us.

As a personal favor to you I will TRY, I promise, not to use Little Bushy in my posts. It is disrespectful, yes, and I do not respect this man, but I give you my word I will do my best.

Love,
Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Popcorn
11-19-2004, 10:29 AM
I doubt there was a military person who thought in the long run it was a good idea. I have a hard time even watching the news any more. I try to not give radical opinions and try to see both sides of an issue but at this point I don't care any more. " Don't care one bit about the people of Iraq, and if you piled up the whole bunch of them, they are not worth the life of one young American boy. I have a very hard time being unemotional about this, I'm sorry. Trust me, those solders when they come home will never be the same again. All of their lives have been changed forever, for what?

wolfdancer
11-19-2004, 03:38 PM
how's this for a republican ticket in '08
Schwartzkofpt &amp; Schwartzenagger???
Seig Heil!!
Got a nce aliterative ring to it, doncha think?

Gayle in MD
11-20-2004, 11:39 AM
I agree with you completely. I think that the decision to go to war must be made only after every other option has been exhausted. Naturally, being an American, I, too am most upset seeing our boys die in Iraq, I am and always will be an American first above everything else. But, when I see the little children and the old and feeble who are dealing with the hell of war everyday, no matter in which part of the world they reside, Russia, Africa, Iraq, anywhere, it breaks my heart.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2004, 11:41 AM
Hello friend,
LOL, wonder if the rule on that will be overturned? Non American born citizens for president I mean?

Wally_in_Cincy
11-20-2004, 11:59 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Hello friend,
LOL, wonder if the rule on that will be overturned? Non American born citizens for president I mean? <hr /></blockquote>

I know a lot of people have talked about that but I can't see it happening. It would take a Constitutional amendment and there are a whole lot of folks who think that it would be a bad idea.

Popcorn
11-20-2004, 04:30 PM
We have people in our own country living in drug infested areas who can't go out of their own homes, often threatened and even killed. I care about them first. More people die every year in our country just from malpractice, then will ever be killed by terrorists. According to several research studies in the last decade, a total of 225,000 Americans per year have died as a result of their medical treatments or lack there of. We have our own terrorists right here sitting on some bar stool somewhere who will get behind the wheel of a car and kill off 16,000 people in the next year driving drunk. Of course a part of that number are the drunk drivers themselves, so it's not all bad news. My point is, we have problems up the ying-yang here so I don't want to hear about going all over the world making people lives better when our own country is in many ways in a crises situation. I really hate politicians, they are less then worthless.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2004, 04:40 PM
I agree with you. We have fourteen thousand homeless right here in the shadow of the Whitehouse, in Washington DC. One of my greatest concerns is about what exactly Bush will do about Malpractice suits. I am nt saying that we should't take care of our own first, I think we should, only that war is heartbreaking for all those who have to live in the midst of it.

Gayle