Author Topic: Bush to replace Top Generals (Read 1130 times)

DREDIOCK · « **on:** January 05, 2007, 11:46:23 PM »

Bush to Replace Top Generals

The question is... WHY?

Bush's own hardheadedness in being unwilling to not "Stay the course"
and not take a fresh approach sooner When it became painfully obvious the current course wasnt going to work is in large part the problem.

Looks kinda like the typical Shift the blame mentality so prevelent these days

Not to mention we needed more troops two years ago.
Nows the time to start making our footprint less obvious. Not more

Its well known I have supported the operation in Iraq all along.
For those who might think I am having a change of heart. I am not.

I was and am still in support of going into Iraq.
What I am against. Is how its been handled since the fall of Bahgdad

rpm · « **Reply #1 on:** January 05, 2007, 11:56:07 PM »

Because they do not support the troops.

Silat · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2007, 12:07:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Because they do not support the troops.

You liberal commie

storch · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2007, 12:35:56 AM »

part of the problem is that it seems washington is micro managing the war. mr bush could use a page from his father's war book. mr bush is acting a lot like mr johnson did during viet-nam.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2007, 12:40:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
mr bush could use a page from his father's war book.

Getting hit with ack and bailing?

storch · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2007, 12:43:20 AM »

no letting the generals run the fight.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #6 on:** January 05, 2007, 07:46:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
part of the problem is that it seems washington is micro managing the war. mr bush could use a page from his father's war book. mr bush is acting a lot like mr johnson did during viet-nam.

One of the things I liked about Bush (up until this, and this started a while ago) is that he didn't let opinion polls and focus groups determine his policy.

It sounds to me as if he's finally let all the criticism get to him.

oboe · « **Reply #7 on:** January 05, 2007, 11:14:36 AM »

You guys need to have faith that Bush knows this war better than the generals on the ground over there. Hitler was also forced to replace two top generals during the Russian Campaign, when they suggested retreating in order to save their forces. He later told Erhard Milch:

Quote

I had to act ruthlessly. I had to send even my closest generals packing, two army generals, for example … I could only tell these gentlemen, "Get yourself back to Germany as rapidly as you can — but leave the army in my charge. And the army is staying at the front." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Leadership

We can't settle for anything less than complete victory, and according to Mr. Bush, all it will take is a surge of 20,000 more troops. How can you fault that logic? If the trained military professionals can't see that, then we should get them out of there.

john9001 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 05, 2007, 11:59:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
no letting the generals run the fight.

you mean like Truman did with MacArthur in korea?

bush can't win , if he makes no changes libruls say he is wrong, if he makes changes libruls say he is wrong.

Debonair · « **Reply #9 on:** January 05, 2007, 12:25:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Getting hit with ack and bailing?

is that braver or stupider than LBJ's combat experience of running away & letting the other B-26s fight Saburo Sakai

Choocha · « **Reply #10 on:** January 05, 2007, 12:44:23 PM »

oboe,

Using Hitler as an example to support your point is pathetic. Historians unanimously agree that Hitlers meddling was ruinious for the German Armed forces.

Bush doing this is no different that when he destroyed the careear of the former JCS (forgot his name) for saying that occupying Iraq would take a couple hundred thousand troops.

His new "strategy", Lol, this is from the moron that put us in this position in the first place.

storch · « **Reply #11 on:** January 05, 2007, 02:14:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
you mean like Truman did with MacArthur in korea?

bush can't win , if he makes no changes libruls say he is wrong, if he makes changes libruls say he is wrong.

if mr truman had allowed general macarthur a free hand in korea vietnam wouldn't have happened and our kids wouldn't possibly become slaves to china in the future. so yes mr truman, like all democrats was a traitor and an imbecile.

RightF00T · « **Reply #12 on:** January 05, 2007, 03:00:39 PM »

Holy crap, what is going on with this thread? Like time warps and none of the posts seem to be in order(posts being quoted before they're posted)

oboe · « **Reply #13 on:** January 05, 2007, 04:01:14 PM »

choocha,

I agree completely. You're thinking of Gen Eric Shinseki, the man who's estimate of the requirement of several hundred thousand occupying troops to stabilize post-invasion Iraq was flatly rejected by Bush and his cronies, and he was sent packing. Ultimately he may have been correct, many are saying that now.

Pretty sad. Herr Bush is sure he's got it figured out now though.

Storch,

you are delusional.

Hazzer · « **Reply #14 on:** January 05, 2007, 04:07:35 PM »

Bush is the worst president the us has ever had.Don't believe me?watch the middle east crisis seriously escalate over this year.see ya suckers.