Former top General in Iraq blast Bush admin 4 creating Iraq Nightmare

[maineman]

You did NOT quote him completely, you edited what he said. Provide the full quote or admit your full of shit.

you statement:

"Add in the fact he did not say what Maineman and the press have claimed he said....."

Here is what I claimed he said:

"America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

I posted a link to the news article from whence I got that quote. I didn't EDIT shit. I posted a quote from him. I am claiming that he did, in fact, say "America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.” Nowhere did I ever try to claim that General Sanchez stood up and said ONLY "America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.” and then walked away from the interview. I have no requirement to post his entire testimony and my not doing so is, in no way, claiming he said something he didn't say It is exerpting a comment from what he DID say.

Now...again. what did I CLAIM he said that he did NOT say?


still waiting.

keep wiggling away from just being a man and admitting you misspoke.

That is clearly YOUR modus operandi!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you statement:

"Add in the fact he did not say what Maineman and the press have claimed he said....."

Here is what I claimed he said:

"America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

I posted a link to the news article from whence I got that quote. I didn't EDIT shit. I posted a quote from him. I am claiming that he did, in fact, say "America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.” Nowhere did I ever try to claim that General Sanchez stood up and said ONLY "America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.” and then walked away from the interview. I have no requirement to post his entire testimony and my not doing so is, in no way, claiming he said something he didn't say It is exerpting a comment from what he DID say.

Now...again. what did I CLAIM he said that he did NOT say?


still waiting.

keep wiggling away from just being a man and admitting you misspoke.

That is clearly YOUR modus operandi!

Your so full of shit... who made the title of the thread? You? Or some nebulous other? Maybe GunnyL made it?

 

[maineman]

Your so full of shit... who made the title of the thread? You? Or some nebulous other? Maybe GunnyL made it?

I think if you check the first page of the thread, you will see that DeadCanDance named HIS thread that, and when the two were combined, they used his name and not mine.

retraction, anyone?

 

[maineman]

but don't take MY word for it...why not ask DeadCanDance whether he started a thread entitled "Former top General in Iraq blast Bush admin 4 creating Iraq Nightmare" or whether he replied to MY thread.

I can wait.

 

[doniston]

I think if you check the first page of the thread, you will see that DeadCanDance named HIS thread that, and when the two were combined, they used his name and not mine.

retraction, anyone?

From RetardedGySgt??? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING.

 

[maineman]

From RetardedGySgt??? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING.

hope springs eternal, but I am certainly not holding my breath.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Your so full of shit... who made the title of the thread? You? Or some nebulous other? Maybe GunnyL made it?

The thread title is mine. The moderator must have combined my thread about Sanchez, with MM's thread about Sanchez.

 

[maineman]

The thread title is mine. The moderator must have combined my thread about Sanchez, with MM's thread about Sanchez.

thank you.

not that I expect your post to yield anything approaching an ethical response from RGS...but thank you in any case!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

thank you.

not that I expect your post to yield anything approaching an ethical response from RGS...but thank you in any case!

As usual you would be wrong. But then your ignorance is astounding for being an officer. The only retraction you will get is that I accept you did not put up the thread title. You have however continued to argue and your starting post calls, everyone not in lock step with you a BUTTlicker, NOT bootlicker for Bush. I notice you have tried to change that.

Your routinely try to tell people what to think, how to post and what to say.

Ohh and when are YOU going to retract your statement that we were all going to question this general's patriotism? I have not seen anyone do it yet.Further the General did not say we should cut and run, nor did he say we can not win. His point was that while he was around in command he did not think EVERYONE involved was doing what needed to be done to win, thus making it a nightmare. He does NOT suggest we should leave, he says we should hold EVERYONE accountable for their blunders, which by the way , would include HIM. He wants us in fact to finish the job.

Now remind us when you have EVER supported a win in Iraq?

 

[maineman]

As usual you would be wrong. But then your ignorance is astounding for being an officer. The only retraction you will get is that I accept you did not put up the thread title. You have however continued to argue and your starting post calls, everyone not in lock step with you a BUTTlicker, NOT bootlicker for Bush. I notice you have tried to change that.

Your routinely try to tell people what to think, how to post and what to say.

Ohh and when are YOU going to retract your statement that we were all going to question this general's patriotism? I have not seen anyone do it yet.Further the General did not say we should cut and run, nor did he say we can not win. His point was that while he was around in command he did not think EVERYONE involved was doing what needed to be done to win, thus making it a nightmare. He does NOT suggest we should leave, he says we should hold EVERYONE accountable for their blunders, which by the way , would include HIM. He wants us in fact to finish the job.

Now remind us when you have EVER supported a win in Iraq?

I have never told you how to post or what to say...I have never told anyone how to post - only suggested that when people are asked a question, the appropriate thing to do in conversations is to acknowledge the question and answer it.

I am pleased and surprised that people have not questioned General Sanchez's patriotism, although some have certainly suggested he had ulterior - and mildly unsavory - motives for his statements.

And you don't need to tell me what the general said or didn't say... I can read.

I have always supported a military victory in Iraq. I think we acheived that long ago. I have also always stated MY belief that the victory we were really seeking in Iraq was a political one and that the military was designed and equipped to achieve military victories and not politcal ones.

P.S. oh... yeah...and your statement was that the general did not say what I claimed he said. That's a lie. You probably should retract that one too!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have never told you how to post or what to say...I have never told anyone how to post - only suggested that when people are asked a question, the appropriate thing to do in conversations is to acknowledge the question and answer it.

I am pleased and surprised that people have not questioned General Sanchez's patriotism, although some have certainly suggested he had ulterior - and mildly unsavory - motives for his statements.

And you don't need to tell me what the general said or didn't say... I can read.

I have always supported a military victory in Iraq. I think we acheived that long ago. I have also always stated MY belief that the victory we were really seeking in Iraq was a political one and that the military was designed and equipped to achieve military victories and not politcal ones.

P.S. oh... yeah...and your statement was that the general did not say what I claimed he said. That's a lie. You probably should retract that one too!

Your a moron, But then most people already know that. Thanks for playing.

 

[Shogun]

Your a moron, But then most people already know that. Thanks for playing.

PROFOUND post, RGS! I hope you didn't break a sweat with that one!

 

[maineman]

Your a moron, But then most people already know that. Thanks for playing.

somehow I am not at all surprised by your cowardice and complete absence of ethics. now crawl back under your rock.

and actually, I think that most people already know that I am intelligent and articulate and that I occasionally use too much profanity in my posts. most people know that I am very moderate about most issues with the exception of the war in Iraq which I am convinced history will show to be the single worst foreign policy blunder in our nation's history.

Because I fervently believe that does NOT make me a moron.... but because you fervently refuse to even consider that it might be true DOES make you a Bush butt licker!

 

[Gunny]

Gunnery Sergeant, politics is a reality that existed long before Truman and hasnt changed since the beginning of warfare.

The role of the CG is two fold, and always has been, its to direct the tactical operations in order to implement the strategic goals of the nation, and two is to serve as the figure head in a leadership role that represents the military involved in the conflict. This goes all the way back to George Washington.

A CG resigning in protest to the negative decisions of their civilian leadership is not in any way related to the mission not being liked, or in any way about quiting.

I mean this with no disrespect, but do you even attempt to read the posts?

SR

Sure I'm reading your posts ... and getting a pretty good kick out of a LCpl trying to tell me what's up. You're long on idealism and short on reality.

You also have responded out of context to my statement. I did not say politics did not exist before Truman. What I said is politics in the US began dictating strategy and tactics with Truman.

You can call cherrypicking assignments and quitting on the ones you disagree with whatever you want ... I call it cherrypicking assignments and quitting when you disagree.

Wonder how that would have worked at Chosin?

 

[trobinett]

somehow I am not at all surprised by your cowardice and complete absence of ethics. now crawl back under your rock.

and actually, I think that most people already know that I am intelligent and articulate and that I occasionally use too much profanity in my posts. most people know that I am very moderate about most issues with the exception of the war in Iraq which I am convinced history will show to be the single worst foreign policy blunder in our nation's history.

Because I fervently believe that does NOT make me a moron.... but because you fervently refuse to even consider that it might be true DOES make you a Bush butt licker!

I've followed this thread from the beginning, and it really hasn't grown, or really gone ANYWHERE, except maybe in the toilet.

Nice job guys, no wonder we can't seem to get it right...

 

[Avatar4321]

http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html

How about you actually read what General Sanchez says. But then it wont support the original post.

 

[maineman]

http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html

How about you actually read what General Sanchez says. But then it wont support the original post.

the original post claimed only that he had said this:

"America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

Are you suggesting he did not say that?

from you rlink:

"THERE HAS BEEN A GLARING, UNFORTUNATE, DISPLAY OF INCOMPETENT STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP WITHIN OUR NATIONAL LEADERS. AS A JAPANESE PROVERB SAYS, "ACTION WITHOUT VISION IS A NIGHTMARE." THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT AMERICA IS LIVING A NIGHTMARE WITH NO END IN SIGHT."

That would seem to support the original post, mon ami

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Sure I'm reading your posts ... and getting a pretty good kick out of a LCpl trying to tell me what's up. You're long on idealism and short on reality.

You also have responded out of context to my statement. I did not say politics did not exist before Truman. What I said is politics in the US began dictating strategy and tactics with Truman.

You can call cherrypicking assignments and quitting on the ones you disagree with whatever you want ... I call it cherrypicking assignments and quitting when you disagree.

Wonder how that would have worked at Chosin?

If youre going to continue to completely disregard my posts, then i will return the very same disregard towards yours, except to say this.

Politics in the US has dictated strategy and tactics since the revolutionary war Gunnery Sergeant. Since George Washington and his young country were desperate for a victory and he decided to attack the garrison and surprise the British at Trenton simply because he couldnt allow ALL of NJ to be held by the enemy, needing more volunteers, and money from congress and being short on any victories was desperate for some sort of good news. His decision was just as much political in nature as it had ANY possible thing to do with military tactics, he put his entire force at risk in the middle of the winter, going across a river, with total surprise as his only winning strategy. It was a gamble that paid off and bought him more time with the population and the young congress and proved to be more politically valuable than anything else. Just because you win the conflict in no way precludes it from having political involvement in tactical decisions.

Im sorry Gunnery Sergeant, but to suggest that politics has only played a role in tactical decisions since the early 1950's is laughable.

I shouldnt have to rehash points with you Gunnery Sergeant, I have never mentioned any sort of thing being close to cherry picking assignments. Invoking battles, historical battles, that demonstrate perseverance and enormous sacrifice have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

To try and bring you back on track, this conversation is about the role or the expected role of a Commanding General, overseeing the tactical implementation of the strategic aims of civilian leadership and the performance of that CG during his term, and then his/her actions following that term in the public arena. This has nothing to do with how hard the mission is, or how that relates to historical battles that mean more to me and you than anyone else reading because of the branch we serve in.

Misquote me again and talk with yourself Gunnery Sergeant.

SR

 

[Gunny]

If youre going to continue to completely disregard my posts, then i will return the very same disregard towards yours, except to say this.

Politics in the US has dictated strategy and tactics since the revolutionary war Gunnery Sergeant. Since George Washington and his young country were desperate for a victory and he decided to attack the garrison and surprise the British at Trenton simply because he couldnt allow ALL of NJ to be held by the enemy, needing more volunteers, and money from congress and being short on any victories was desperate for some sort of good news. His decision was just as much political in nature as it had ANY possible thing to do with military tactics, he put his entire force at risk in the middle of the winter, going across a river, with total surprise as his only winning strategy. It was a gamble that paid off and bought him more time with the population and the young congress and proved to be more politically valuable than anything else. Just because you win the conflict in no way precludes it from having political involvement in tactical decisions.

Im sorry Gunnery Sergeant, but to suggest that politics has only played a role in tactical decisions since the early 1950's is laughable.

I shouldnt have to rehash points with you Gunnery Sergeant, I have never mentioned any sort of thing being close to cherry picking assignments. Invoking battles, historical battles, that demonstrate perseverance and enormous sacrifice have nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

To try and bring you back on track, this conversation is about the role or the expected role of a Commanding General, overseeing the tactical implementation of the strategic aims of civilian leadership and the performance of that CG during his term, and then his/her actions following that term in the public arena. This has nothing to do with how hard the mission is, or how that relates to historical battles that mean more to me and you than anyone else reading because of the branch we serve in.

Misquote me again and talk with yourself Gunnery Sergeant.

SR

Excuse me? First, junior, I'm not disregarding your posts. I'm just not playing your little game of posting rebuttals the length of "War and Peace." Obviously you have an issue with how important you consider your words to be and expect some comment on each and every one.

To get YOU back on track, boot ... if you don't like your assignment, you carry the MFer out the best of your ability any-damned-way ... GET IT YET?

Yeah, you ARE talking about cherrypicking and quitting. You're just trying to dress it up and call it something else to suit your argument.

So let me see if I can't draw your Cash Sales-smelling ass a picture with the BIG crayons ... General officers don't have the power and control you are attempting to give them. Period.

And don't presume to lecture ME about dragging past actions into the fray when YOU tried to justify YOUR overly-ideological opinion of general officers all the way back to George Washington.

To suggest that politics rather than military action decided the outcomes of wars prior to Korea is laughable. It's quite obvious it is YOU doing the misquoting by taking what i am saying out of context and running off on your own little tangeant about politics with it.

I can only assume you are either being purposefully dishonest, or you're just too dumb to figure it out.

You have YET to man up and address MY point; rather, choosing to fill each post with fluff that is irrelevant to the point.

Oh, and you can't put ME on ignore.

 

[SR_fullpolitics]

Gunnery Sergeant, no disrespect intended but if my posts are too long for you dont read them. If they are too articulated or too in depth, dont read them.

I have no desire to try and have a discussion with someone, and their final response is "im a gunny youre a boot, im smarter, nah nah nah", while you misquote and misrepresent everything ive tried to discuss with you.

Its a waste of both our time, and its not challenging enough for me.

I dont need an ignore button to disregard the posts of anyone.

SR