General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
I wrote:

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

General Zinni:

"My son is a Marine Officer in the infantry. I lost a member of my family in
Iraq, the son of my cousin, already. So, it's become very personal. Not to
mention, just every one of those faces I see, I recognize. I mean, not
directly, but these are, I mean, knew those sergeants and corporals and PFCs
after 40 years, that paid a price for this, you know?"

You might consider that sort of thing yourself.

The former SecNav and the former CG of Centcom are calling this a blunder -- a
blunder attended with 5,000 casualties, and all you do is spout the Bushco
blather.

While we're at it, let's give the other critics who also knew a little about
wars their due. No need to omit Brent Scowcroft, Norman Scwarzkopf, or Wesley
Clark from the list of those who gave long years of service to their country and
who, like Anthony Zinni, think this war was a disaster from the gitgo. All of
the fishing around looking for excuses to go to war that the public might buy
done by our leaders tells us that this was a war fought to satisfy their
visceral needs far more than it served our nation's needs. They just couldn't
resist satisfying the need to be heroes if they could find a way to do it
without risk to their skins. That explains going to war a lot more than the
phony excuses they tried to foist off on us, one after another as they failed to
hold water on presentation.

George Z.

Walt

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I wrote:

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

Walt

Walt,

I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues. I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.

General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.

As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands. I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.

Who are the French to tell us how to deal with terrorism? We saved
their bacon at great cost twice during the last century. Who are the
Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
twice on behalf of the French last century. Who is the UN to make
policy decisions by majority rule of 190+ countries like Ghana,
Guinnea Bissau, Cameroon, etc, that are binding on the US.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible. We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.

We have suffered losses in the military. They are all regretable, each
and every one. But, when we raised our hands and swore the oath, we
knew that was a possibility. We will be well served by establishment
of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
Saddam. We are doing what is necessary and the price is steep, but not
as steep as it could have been.

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?


Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Who are the
Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
twice on behalf of the French last century.

Alone?,As far as I could remember US was the part of a global alliance.
In spite of all numerical odds,Germans would still have kicked ass of the
Global Alliance if they had a couple of months more time.

Reality is that Brzezinkis ambitious "Eurasia" plan has been defeated and US is
being pushed out of Eurasia to Cyprus-Turkey-Iran-Afghanistan line without
firing one shot in Anger.
Some nations have plenty of military power ,some others plenty of Brainpower.
Nations with Brainpower can create a formidable military within very short
time,but nations with military power but no Brainpower may need centuries to to
build Brainpower.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible

Nobody attacked US,it was another domestic PSYOP designed to "vaccinate" US
aganist future threats and natural disasters.
(I hope you know why and how medical professionals use vaccines)

We will be well served by establishment
of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
Saddam. We are doing what is

US interests are best served by the installation of Saddam 2.0 version of
Operating system.
(I cant imagine why a democracy or voters in a democracy should or would
approve the colonization of their countries ,examples Philippines,Turkey and
recently India)

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?

Beginning of a healthy and democratic discussion.

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

I wrote:

What I can't understand how little you seem to care about the guys who are
getting KIA and WIA following up on a bad policy -- and what General Zinni
called --dereliction-- of-- duty--.

I just can't figure it.

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

Walt

Walt,

I have no trouble with my opinions or my actions. I don't have a clue
who you are nor how you might be justified to comment on my positions
on the issues. I've got a long career of service to country and have
no need to apologize for anything.

General Zinni is entitled to his position on the situation, but it
doesn't determine mine and if we disagree it doesn't mean I don't care
for folks in uniform.

As for the war on terror, it leads me to recall Sean Connery's
comments in "The Untouchables". Let me roughly paraphrase. If you
threaten me, I will hurt you. If you threaten my family, I will kill
you. If you threaten my nation, I will kill you by the thousands. I
will determine the level of force used and it will be decisive,
possibly even viewed as extreme, but I will win. I know too well the
cost of gradualism in a war.

Who are the French to tell us how to deal with terrorism? We saved
their bacon at great cost twice during the last century. Who are the
Germans to tell us when and where to get involved? We kicked their ass
twice on behalf of the French last century. Who is the UN to make
policy decisions by majority rule of 190+ countries like Ghana,
Guinnea Bissau, Cameroon, etc, that are binding on the US.

America was attacked. We identified the source of the attack--the
terrorist organization responsible. We didn't lob a few cruise
missiles from afar, destroy an aspirin factory and go back to the
hallway adjacent to the Oval Office with our intern. We rolled up our
sleeves and took on the thankless task of rooting the *******s out.

We have suffered losses in the military. They are all regretable, each
and every one. But, when we raised our hands and swore the oath, we
knew that was a possibility. We will be well served by establishment
of a democracy in the middle East. We will benefit from the removal of
Saddam. We are doing what is necessary and the price is steep, but not
as steep as it could have been.

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces after
WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their experiences with
it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse to dance to our tune.
In addition, their current contributions to our efforts against terrorism in
Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of those of our vaunted coalition
allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better than the condescension with which
you deal with them. But that's just my opinion, and I hope you will allow me
that without tearing me a new asshole for daring to make that point.

George Z.

On 27 May 2004 14:12:14 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: Ed Rasimus

On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Now, all that being said, just who the **** are you to tell me how to
act?


Now Ed, be nice. Remember you are an officer and a gentleman. (grin)


And a warrior. And a bunch of other things as well.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Thu, 27 May 2004 10:59:43 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 27 May 2004 11:13:38 GMT, (WalterM140) wrote:

Ed:

Trust me, I care very much about the folks in uniform.

Then act like it.

Walt

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
suffer fools, gladly or not. Until someone offers credentials, I won't
be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.

BTW, your comment on the French was ill advised, IMHO. They were exposed to
Islamic terrorism long before we were when Algeria blew up in their faces after
WWII. It might benefit us to try to learn something from their experiences with
it instead of trying to put them down because they refuse to dance to our tune.
In addition, their current contributions to our efforts against terrorism in
Afghanistan is somewhat larger than many of those of our vaunted coalition
allies in Iraq. They deserve somewhat better than the condescension with which
you deal with them. But that's just my opinion, and I hope you will allow me
that without tearing me a new asshole for daring to make that point.

It wasn't condescension, it was merely statement of fact. There is
hardly a nation in the world that hasn't suffered terrorism in one
form or another--much of it isn't muslim extremist. But, it is
difficult to deny the fact that failure to respond to terrorism
doesn't offer much in the way of results. To abjectly declare that we
are somehow responsible for it and that if we simply understand their
pain, join hands and sing Kumbaya together it will all go away is
foolishness of the highest order.

Simply declining to participate would have been a choice available to
the French, however undermining our diplomatic efforts, duplicity in
the UN and a clear economic linkage to the Saddam regime have combined
to make the French involvement in the Iraq question less than
reasonable behavior.

As for any rending, tearing or surgical rearrangement of your
posterior, I will refrain since you have demonstrated your bona fides
on numerous occasions. While we disagree on some issues, the
discussion is on the issue itself and not what you should or should
not be doing in regard to a particular sense of values.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote:

Tsk. Tsk. You lose the high ground when you lose your temper. He's entitled to
disagree with you, as you are with him, but there's no need for anyone to be
disagreeable about it. Let's keep the discussion on a civil plane, please.

I don't lose my temper, however I also have a deep reluctance to
suffer fools, gladly or not. Until someone offers credentials, I won't
be told whether or not I value our troops nor how to act.

I'm in agreement with everything you wrote and I knew that you didn't
lose your temper. Even if you had, fighter pilots are entitled to spew
a little napalm from time to time.

Walt:

You do understand that when you change the subject (as with this
sub-thread), most of us assume you are ceding the original point. Just
thought I'd remind you. The new issue you introduce ("wrongness" of Clinton
policy) has already been handled elsewhere.

As to Zinni's credentials/opinion (the original point), are you ceding
that his participation in creating the "Other" policy (failed or not) has
more to do with his current opinion than any rational analysis of the facts?
You know, the "Clarke Effect?"

Steve Swartz


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
From: "Leslie Swartz"

Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.

Why wrong? I don't think the Clinton "line" produced 5,000 battle
casualties.

We've been in Iraq for 14 months. To whom are we giving control of the
country
on 6/30/04?

No one knows.

I don't need a 4 star general to tell me that this is a disaster.

Walt

Chad:

"Cut from the same cloth" is a little too polite. These are (mainly?
all?) the same damn people *directly* responsible for the failed policies
that made our current effort in large part necessary.

Zinni, Clark, Clarke, Clinton, Gore, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum ad vomitum.

To hear them now spouting off about the current effort to clean up their
mess is indeed quite "ironical," isn't it? I mean, like Jamie Gorelick
spoutning off about intelligence failures because the FBI and CIA didn't
share enough information . . .

TWILIGHT ZONE!

Steve Swartz



"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
(WalterM140) wrote:

From: "Leslie Swartz"

Zinni strongly supported the Clinton line (he helped develop it), and
continues to refuse to admit the line was wrong.

Why wrong? I don't think the Clinton "line" produced 5,000 battle
casualties.

We've been in Iraq for 14 months. To whom are we giving control of the
country
on 6/30/04?

No one knows.

I don't need a 4 star general to tell me that this is a disaster.

On the other hand, the folks who are telling us things like "this is a
disaster" are cut from the same cloth as the people who were telling us
that there would be upwards of a half-*million* dead during the conflict
and in the months afterwards, with the "smart money" coming in at over a
hundred thousand (the low estimate by most antiwar folks was 20,000 or
so dead, but that was the extreme lowball by the more optimistic folks),
with a half-million or more refugees flooding the neighboring countries.

UNHCR said there would be *900,000* refugees from the war, that all
health, food, and water distribution would be effectively shut down for
a long time, creating a huge humanitarian catastrophe with upwards of a
half-million direct physical casualties. Epidemics and pandemics of
cholera and dysentery were supposed to happen. Three million people
were supposed to be in need of "therapeutic" feedings due to food
shortages.

How about this little bit of prognostication?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...nsequences/200
3/0214grimpict.htm

Note the complete lack of these events coming to pass...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.