A soldier's viewpoint

[lookout123]

well, those were some nice posts tw. you've used your wonderfully effective method of puking a variety of information on to the screen without stepping back to think about where the whole Lookout vs TW pissing contest started. you made claims of multiple sources as proof of Tommy Franks great anger over being instructed to update 1003 and prepare for a possible invasion of Iraq.

It was leaked to the press sometime after the Iraq war started. It was reported as part of some news articles

He literally exploded over that absurd request - and justifiably so.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

Gen Franks was clearly furious when told to plan for the Iraq invasion. And he should have been.

Franks was furious that we were even talking about an Iraq invasion - because unlike the president, Franks is intelligent.

i simply asked for your sources because these statements are not compatible with the reading that i have done. i readily admit that i have not read every news story or book written - that is why i asked for your sources.
in reviewing what i have read, Franks' own book as well as numerous news stories, i still don't see any support for your statements. over the last couple of days i have searched the net for references to this. the only anger related to Franks that pops up frequently is the anger over the possible War Crimes charges that he was faced with.

in response you post a one sentence quote from Woodward's book as your "proof" of Franks great anger. no mention of the news articles that were originally mentioned, no quotes from Franks or other highlevel players to support your claims. you instead found it easier to target me and claim that my questioning you was due to a blind following of bush and an unwillingness to accept well known facts. when i went back and again asked you to answer the questions related to our original posts you again went on the attack and attempted to cloud the issue with a number of questions i was supposed to answer. all i asked for in the beginning were sources for your claims of Franks' anger - you have tried to divert the discussion in a number of different directions.

i have to ask why? is it because you don't have sources for those claims? is it that i don't deserve access to the knowledge that you hold? or is just easier to go on the attack than to answer a question? you may very well be correct in your claims but i've got no documentation to tell me that.

i also sought to correct your statement that Franks was ordered to prepare an Iraq invasion plan before we had invaded Afghanistan. i provided an accurate chronology based on news stories and Franks' writings.
you still make the claim that Franks was ordered to plan for an Iraq invasion before we went to afghanistan. what sources are you using? i would really like to know.

[lookout123]

tw, i'm not saying that you are lying or have sought to deceive anyone. there may very well be support for your claims. i would like to see that support if it exists. you might take comfort in your theory that i am a blind and foolish bush supporter, but you would be wrong. i am a realist. i want the real unspun facts gathered from the actual sources rather than facts as filtered through the childhood game of "telephone". we won't always agree on the correct course of action based on the info at hand, but we should always be able to discuss what the facts are without it becoming some sort of emotional pissing match.
i hold a world view that is definitely in the minority in the cellar, yet i spend a lot of time here. why? it's not because i'm a hannity/limbaugh sycophant or a bush/cheney disciple. i like to see a lot of info, from differing views because this helps me to constantly shift and adapt my view of the world. if i was the type of disciple of bush that you describe, i wouldn't be able to absorb and accept ideas that people like HappyMonkey, Glatt, and Hot_Pastrami argue. the reason that they are able to sometimes bring people to their view is that they aren't insulting and condescending in what they post. they answer questions with specific, precise replies usually with links to their sources. what they don't do is lash out at anyone who dares to question them.

Originally Posted by lookout123

i like to see a lot of info, from differing views because this helps me to constantly shift and adapt my view of the world. if i was the type of disciple of bush that you describe, i wouldn't be able to absorb and accept ideas that people like HappyMonkey, Glatt, and Hot_Pastrami argue. the reason that they are able to sometimes bring people to their view is that they aren't insulting and condescending in what they post. they answer questions with specific, precise replies usually with links to their sources. what they don't do is lash out at anyone who dares to question them.

I don't want to get into it between you and tw, either way. However, just for myself, I'd like to thank you for the little reminder about being polite and substantiating one's facts. I have a tendency to loose my temper (bet you never guessed!), and I don't like it when someone does that to me. I'll do my best to be more civil around here, maybe even to you, as well!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Had a thought.
After the first Gulf War, the people in the middle east must have been impressed at the awesome display of power we presented, the carnage of that column fleeing Kuwait and the speed of our victory.

After this debacle in Iraq, they must be thinking, the mighty USA ain’t so tough. They(we) can be bitch slapped and eventually beaten. Driven out of their sacred land with our tails between our legs.

I know all about the relatives of “collateral damage” becoming terrorists on a revenge trip, but more than that. Has Bush’s mishandling of this war actually given the terrorists a boost by convincing recruits that maybe they are joining a potential winner rather than a suicide squad?

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

I'll do my best to be more civil around here, maybe even to you, as well!

George Jr and his Project for a New American Century political agenda has literally undone in 3+ years everything that America stands for since WWII. Upcoming is a very serious election. Clearly the reelection of George Jr will have severe and long time consequnces for every American - especially American soldiers who will suffer with those consequences. I have great fear of these consequences literally with everything I read. And I am reading more and more about this - a most dangerous president - every month. He even just sat there for seven minutes in a FL classroom as America was under attack. He waited to be told what to do. This President literally has undone decades of work that made the world stable. This from just too many of America's best people. This from too many of the best in science, politics, and military study.

George Jr literally undid all the work by Jimmy Carter and Kim Jong-il to bring a country chock full of extremists back into the world community. Having undone all that work, there is no doubt that N Korea now must go nuclear. Thank you George Jr. Only an irresponsible N Korean leadership would avoid nuclear weapons considering 1) the introverted perspective of his Kim's top people and 2) because George Jr has already listed countries that the US will attack. We now know George Jr (actually his people who control the puppet) cannot be restrained even by the American public, the UN, the world, or any other reasonable people. US has demonstrated that it intends to unilaterlly attack Iraq (done), Iran (probably next), and North Korea. N Korea must go nuclear - thank you George Jr.

I cannot wish for a worse group of leaders to hold nuclear power. The North Koreans who provide Kim Jung-Il with his power are some of the most introverted in the world. They will be nuclear empowered because George Jr outrightly and ignorantly destroyed all the work of Jimmy Carter, et al.

US will probably attack Iran next. Troop movements, military base construction, and changes being imposed on world treaties (including the elimination of verification inspections) all suggest that war will be next. If Iran is not bluffing, then the invasion of Iran will go nuclear. Again, Iran would be remiss to avoid making nuclear weapons because George Jr has an attack list - the axis of evil.

If these are not enough, George Jr did as European foreign minister predicted. He undermined the Oslo Accords; replacing them with what is a joke - the roadmap for peace. That roadmap is only so that Americans without news sources (the classic George Jr supporters) actually think George Jr wants peace. More destruction to what America and the western world spent generations working to avoid.

Just a few of many reasons why George Jr is bad for the world. All this nonsense about whether Franks was angry is to avoid those hard questions. And so we have hard questions that George Jr supporters fear to answer. The consequences of reelecting George Jr are exampled in this post. That means soldiers gets stuck with consequences of right wing extremist agendas. When confronted with hard questions, the president's supporters again obfuscate the post. Lookout123. Posted are THE questions - making Gen Frank's anger a classic example of avoiding those questions. Answer the questions. You can't because those questions demonstrate how dangerous this president really is.

Lookout123. Answers those hard questions. You avoid those questions because you are a strong George Jr supporter. You will not even answer one question - when are we going after Osama bin Laden. I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over. Yes, long term consequences mean that much instability, death, and destruction would be created by this mental midget, extremist president.

A reelection of George Jr is that dangerous to every one in every country. Those who support the mental midget president will not even say when we will go after bin Laden. A damning question that George Jr supporters fear to answer because it exposes presidental incompetance. Notice not one who favors George Jr will even answer that question. Damning evidence. Presidental incompetance that has not been seen since Richard Nixon. Lookout123. Answer the questions.

Bottom line point - he cannot answer. Instead he avoids those questions with nonsense about General Frank's well justified mini-explosion. Anything to avoid talking about presidental incompetance.

Posted here is a serious concern for the soldier and what he will see. When I advocate war (ie the rescue of Kuwait), then I first and foremost advocate a problem that soldiers can really solve - and be proud of what they do. Therefore I ask hard questions that supporters of George Jr fear to answer.

[lookout123]

Instead he avoids those questions with nonsense about General Frank's well justified mini-explosion.

an entire post again demanding answers to questions that, although valid, weren't the source of contention in this discussion.

tw, can you, or can you not provide support for your claims? if not, just say so and we'll move on to another discussion. if yes, then enlighten me - i want to know.

as far as all of your questions you keep hammering at me? what do you want? is it important that you see me post yet again that i don't think Bush is the best choice in america for president? that i think his battle plans were flawed? that the execution was poor? that Bush & Co have made many errors? that OBL should be a higher priority?

ok. no big deal. those are all things that i have posted about it in the past.

this whole putrid thread has been about nothing more than you refusing to admit that you may have gone a little overboard in your claims about Franks' anger. i asked you for support documentation. you got pissed and lashed out and have repeatedly argued all these other points that i don't believe need to be argued. i agree with you on more than you are willing to admit but you wouldn't know that because you've got some misguided idea that to admit you made an error would lower someone's estimation of your intellect. when, in fact, just the opposite is true. every person on this board has admitted at some point or another that they were arguing an incorrect point. everyone except you. in the past i have backed away from several arguments with you in the name of goodwill. not this time though, i will stay in this little pissing match with you even though i and everyone else in the cellar have been bored with it for a couple of days.

so i ask you again; do you have any support for your claims (other than woodward's book) that Franks was furious about his orders to prepare a commander's concept updating 1003 on Nov 27th, 2001, 20 days after operations began in afghanistan?

[404Error]

I don't want to get in the middle of this pissing match either, , but I've noticed that TW keeps posting the statement that Saddam was not a threat to anyone.

Saddam was a threat to no one.

I think the Kurds that he gassed in his own country would beg to differ on that point. Also the people of Kuwait whose country Saddam invaded and set their oil wells afire would find exception to that statement.
What brought me to speak up on this was a piece on the news this morning, Fox News, where Kerry was quoted saying, "Saddam Hussein was a threat." in a mini press conference yesterday.

Just my .02 cents, carry on the pissing!

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

an entire post again demanding answers to questions that, although valid, weren't the source of contention in this discussion.

Quoted was one source that General Franks - as any general would have done - had a mini-explosion when ordered to plan for an Iraq attack before Afghanistan was even invaded. Your counter proof - you could not find any such outburst mentioned. Therefore it did not exist? But then this has been answered to a brick wall again and again.

Attached to and ignored in that original post are far more important and serious questions. Questions that George Jr supporters must avoid answering. We are talking about a president so bad - so incompetent - that nuclear war is a real possibility. A president that is currently trying to eliminate verification from international arm treaties. Lookout123 refuses to defend this danger to world security? This president that makes Americans the number one target of terrorism.

Again you avoid answering even a simple question - when are we going after bin Laden? Avoid these answers to mask the incompetence of this president. Attached to these questions are answers that say this president would even lie in order to create a war. That is impeachment material. When are we going after bin Laden? Are George Jr supporters so ill informed that they cannot answer that one question about current events? Are they so mentally deficient that they even believe Saddam was an active threat to his neighbors? Even the retired generals said Saddam was contained. Yes he was a threat that was totally contained. Where does a contained threat endanger anyone? It does not. Saddam was a threat to no one - meaning other nations.

Sorry that you are being made the poster boy. Notice not one supporter of the mental midget and therefore anti-American president is willing to answer these questions either. Notice once we go for hard questions, then there is not one George Jr supporter even willing to show us how little he knows about this liar president. Bottom line - only the ill informed would vote for George W Bush - outright lying president and front man for Cheney, Rice, et al. The president who let bin Laden go free and instead blamed Saddam. Those who would vote for such proven liars must be either deceived, mislead, or uneducated. People who fear to even answer simple questions about competency of this president and about a presidental threat to the troops.

Clearly I have struck gold. George Jr supporters fear to defend their man because they cannot. Not one is even willing to answer one simple question.

When do we go after bin Laden? Don't ask George Jr. He starts talking about Saddam. Don't ask George Jr supporters. They fear to answer. Lookout123's missing responses - asking about Gen Franks mini-explosion to obfuscate more important questions - tells us much about those who endorse George Jr - a proven liar.

These are damning questions. The only thing putrid about this thread is that George Jr supporters fear answering hard questions so they don't have to lie. Questions such as when will we go after bin Laden?

[lookout123]

ever feel like you're on a merry-go-round?

tw, if you bother to read my posts at all, you would see that my take on things comes from Tommy Franks own book American Soldier, a number of interviews with Franks and his subordinates which make no reference to him losing his temper, and i've googled and otherwise searched for this event to no avail.

you are the one that referenced numerous articles that described this event so surely you must be able to provide proof of your position. what you're suggesting is that i provide proof that something didn't happen. that is fairly difficult because the media doesn't generally write stories with headlines stating General Tommy Franks Did Not Lose His Temper Today, there aren't any interviews where he is asked "Gen Franks - why didn't you lose your temper on Nov 27th."

does this make any sense to you? tw, you certainly wouldn't accept this type of debate from someone else on the board - so why should it be acceptable from you?