Guantanamo Bay (dention camp) thoughts

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by sacase

Personally I don't subscribe to one party or another. There are some things that I agree with that Republican's say and there are some things that the democrats say that I agree with. But it is obvious, that both parties do what you describe above. The left is always tolerant of things as long as you agree with them. If you don't many of them can get very rabid about it.

What I think needs to happen is the Politicians need to set one goal for the military. Tell them what you want them to achieve, then let them do it. If Remsfield would have listened to Gen Shenseki then we might not be in this mess. General's have spent 30+ years studying warefare, it is their profession. I don't see how a politician can come in and tell them how to win a war, it just doesn't work as been proven over and over again.

You are right in talking about Rummy.

I don't know if we would have won by now, don't know if we would still not be having troubles.

But he screwed it up royally with his philosophy, arrogance and stubbornness IMO.

I am going to cross reference a thread about the border issue with this one and rummy.

Part of the problem was we did not have enough ground forces in place. We had enough for the initial invasion. The conventional aspect of war where we were fighting saddams army..that was ok.

What they did not really think about was having more forces for the aftermath. Oh they may have thought about it but they thought wrong.

They should have thought about better methods of securing the borders.

Even today they clear out one section/city and get it under control...the bad guys move to another area. The military is killing the bad guys so it is not as if all are escaping. The problem is they keep flooding into the country.

You can kill 10 bad guys but it is not going to do you much good if 25 are going to come in and take their place.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

You are right in talking about Rummy.

I don't know if we would have won by now, don't know if we would still not be having troubles.

But he screwed it up royally with his philosophy, arrogance and stubbornness IMO.

I am going to cross reference a thread about the border issue with this one and rummy.

Part of the problem was we did not have enough ground forces in place. We had enough for the initial invasion. The conventional aspect of war where we were fighting saddams army..that was ok.

What they did not really think about was having more forces for the aftermath. Oh they may have thought about it but they thought wrong.

They should have thought about better methods of securing the borders.

[View Full Quote]Even today they clear out one section/city and get it under control...the bad guys move to another area. The military is killing the bad guys so it is not as if all are escaping. The problem is they keep flooding into the country.

You can kill 10 bad guys but it is not going to do you much good if 25 are going to come in and take their place.

I think the criticism of Rumsfeld is warranted to an extent, but wasn't he just the point man on devising an invasion plan that was politically feasible? Given the preemptive, unilateral nature of the conflict, would the Powell doctrine have been able to rally the public to the cause of war, especially when it was apparent that the support of many of our traditional allies would not be forthcoming?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by The_Jackal

I think the criticism of Rumsfeld is warranted to an extent, but wasn't he just the point man on devising an invasion plan that was politically feasible? Given the preemptive, unilateral nature of the conflict, would the Powell doctrine have been able to rally the public to the cause of war, especially when it was apparent that the support of many of our traditional allies would not be forthcoming?

I am not sure if Powell was the architect. He was a salesman if you will. Remember he was the one on the floor at the un saying we have pictures and we know this or that and so on.

I think Rummy and Wolfy were the architects.

Remember Rummy kept going on about how we did not need a huge army but a light and mobile surgical army or something along those lines.
Plus the Shock and Awe campaign.

I think it is even quoted that Powell told the guys "If you break it you buy it"

Powell later stepped down and has since said that his involvement is a stain on his career.

I always liked Powell. There were times I wished he would have ran for President but his wife would not let him.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

I am not sure if Powell was the architect. He was a salesman if you will. Remember he was the one on the floor at the un saying we have pictures and we know this or that and so on.

I think Rummy and Wolfy were the architects.

Remember Rummy kept going on about how we did not need a huge army but a light and mobile surgical army or something along those lines.
Plus the Shock and Awe campaign.

I think it is even quoted that Powell told the guys "If you break it you buy it"

Powell later stepped down and has since said that his involvement is a stain on his career.

I always liked Powell. There were times I wished he would have ran for President but his wife would not let him.

powell is one involved in politics i've *always* had respect for. it's his walking away more than anything that made me wonder what was going on, with the why's and how's and the "what if's". in the end if i were to ever trust someone involved in politics, it would be him. the rest seem to more be who do i give the most benefit of doubt.

should be interesting to see who steps up these days to run for president.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

I am not sure if Powell was the architect. He was a salesman if you will. Remember he was the one on the floor at the un saying we have pictures and we know this or that and so on.

I think Rummy and Wolfy were the architects.

Remember Rummy kept going on about how we did not need a huge army but a light and mobile surgical army or something along those lines.
Plus the Shock and Awe campaign.

I think it is even quoted that Powell told the guys "If you break it you buy it"

Powell later stepped down and has since said that his involvement is a stain on his career.

I always liked Powell. There were times I wished he would have ran for President but his wife would not let him.

I guess the question I'm asking is that given the decision to launch a preemptive strike could the administration have rallied public support with any other plan than a supposedly quick, effortless victory that would require expenditure of material and human resources? Yeah, it was Rummy's brain child, but would another plan requiring a greater time and troop commitment have been capable of bringing along public opinion? It seems like Rummy's plan was really the only viable option at the time, from a political standpoint.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by iceberg

powell is one involved in politics i've *always* had respect for. it's his walking away more than anything that made me wonder what was going on, with the why's and how's and the "what if's". in the end if i were to ever trust someone involved in politics, it would be him. the rest seem to more be who do i give the most benefit of doubt.

should be interesting to see who steps up these days to run for president.

Agreed.

There were a few things I disagreed with him about but really liked him.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by The_Jackal

I guess the question I'm asking is that given the decision to launch a preemptive strike could the administration have rallied public support with any other plan than a supposedly quick, effortless victory that would require expenditure of material and human resources? Yeah, it was Rummy's brain child, but would another plan requiring a greater time and troop commitment have been capable of bringing along public opinion? It seems like Rummy's plan was really the only viable option at the time, from a political standpoint.

People have to remember, and give bush credit for this.

Bush NEVER said it would be a quick victory.

Bush always has maintained this would not be a quick war that it could last a long time. Not just iraq but the war on Terror.

There is a reason they said a war on Terror instead of a war on a specific group or country.

As far as who...I still say Rummy AND Wolfy. I just don't think they went about it in the correct way. I think they resisted advice from people who knew more.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by BrAinPaiNt

Bush NEVER said it would be a quick victory.

I think it would be quite easy to bring up several quotes about "greeting us a liberators," "could take a few weeks," "the oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction," and the like. The point is the even while the administration was covering its bases by admitting the possibility of a protracted war, its leading features were actively hinting in the media that it would probably be a relatively quick and painless campaign.

If their position has always been that the war would be a drawn out and bitterly contested affair then the planning for it makes no sense whatsoever, and I like to think that these people are at least rational on some level even if criminally negligent and ill-intentioned.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by The_Jackal

I think it would be quite easy to bring up several quotes about "greeting us a liberators," "could take a few weeks," "the oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction," and the like. The point is the even while the administration was covering its bases by admitting the possibility of a protracted war, its leading features were actively hinting in the media that it would probably be a relatively quick and painless campaign.

If their position has always been that the war would be a drawn out and bitterly contested affair then the planning for it makes no sense whatsoever, and I like to think that these people are at least rational on some level even if criminally negligent and ill-intentioned.

bring 'em up and let's see what's there. did he say the "war" would be over soon or that saddam would be "out" soon?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Originally Posted by The_Jackal

I think it would be quite easy to bring up several quotes about "greeting us a liberators," "could take a few weeks," "the oil revenues will pay for the reconstruction," and the like. The point is the even while the administration was covering its bases by admitting the possibility of a protracted war, its leading features were actively hinting in the media that it would probably be a relatively quick and painless campaign.

If their position has always been that the war would be a drawn out and bitterly contested affair then the planning for it makes no sense whatsoever, and I like to think that these people are at least rational on some level even if criminally negligent and ill-intentioned.

To be fair to Bush (and I really don't like bush now).

There is a difference between Conventional war and the war on Terror.

There was a two phase plan for this war.

The first was to Beat Saddams army and get saddam and his crew.

That was in fact done rather quickly.

When people bash bush and say...Mission Accomplished.

Sure it may have been arrogant for him to fly in and stand there in that manner.

But the banner was talking about beating Saddam and his army. That mission WAS accomplished.

The second phase was the guerrilla war they knew had to happen. That is where they did not plan well and it has been a mess since.

Even the greet us as liberators and it will only take a few weeks can be attributed to the initial war to take out saddam and his troops...aka the conventional war.

Now the other part about Oil...I give you that one because he was grossly wrong about that.

[locked&loaded]

wow this thread really blew up.

If you havent heard of people being tortured or harassed and embarrassed, just look to the news. Use google. Im not saying everyone but some.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in691602.shtml
(article is a little old, and i only read a little)

"I think the harm we are doing there far outweighs the good, and I believe it's inconsistent with American values," says Saar. "In fact, I think it's fair to say that it’s the moral antithesis of what we want to stand for as a country."

I just think its a little sick, some of these people dont know anythign and they are just getting put through torture.

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by locked&loaded

wow this thread really blew up.

If you havent heard of people being tortured or harassed and embarrassed, just look to the news. Use google. Im not saying everyone but some.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in691602.shtml
(article is a little old, and i only read a little)

"I think the harm we are doing there far outweighs the good, and I believe it's inconsistent with American values," says Saar. "In fact, I think it's fair to say that it’s the moral antithesis of what we want to stand for as a country."

I just think its a little sick, some of these people dont know anythign and they are just getting put through torture.

likely happens every day in the regular judicial system as wel. ever go out and worry about those people also?

again, is gitmo one of the 10 worst prison camps of all time? 20?

no on is advocating torture but many are saying what is happening is overblown and told *by* the prisoners *to* have us divide ourselves.

it's working and that sucks.

[sacase]

I am sorry but Gitmo isn't bad at all and the people who are there truly belong there.

Why is it that no one is complaining about the sheriff in Arizona that makes US prioners live in the desert and wear pink? Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm

[BigDFan5]

Originally Posted by bbgun

All that matters to the fifth columnists is moral preening or dealing a blow to the Bush Administration, and if that hurts the country or the war effort or national security, so be it.

BBGun is my new hero

[locked&loaded]

Originally Posted by iceberg

likely happens every day in the regular judicial system as wel. ever go out and worry about those people also?

again, is gitmo one of the 10 worst prison camps of all time? 20?

no on is advocating torture but many are saying what is happening is overblown and told *by* the prisoners *to* have us divide ourselves.

it's working and that sucks.

Its working...? how so?