OBL, come and get it

Yeah, hopefully they'll soak him in some pig blood to keep him fresh until OBL shows up.

 

Believe it or not I agree that we are trying to fight a PC war instead of killing the enemy.

Since we are in Iraq, we need to do what is necessary to win. Maybe if our soldiers were allowed to actually wage war, we would be able to bring them home sooner.

Also, it might show the rest of the world that we know how to win a war regardless of what is needed to do it.

 

Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty!

 

General Herrington,

I might possibly agree with you a bit here. Tell me, General, what specifically would you do differently to win the war?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Well Private Botwinick, the first thing I would do is convince Pakistan to allow us to cross the border and find Bin Laden. I think this would give the enemy a devastating blow. I would also probably withdraw troops from Iraq and move them to Afghanistan.

 

Wonder who it was that first said "dead men don't talk"? With today's technology even that is possible.

 

I agree. But we should not soil our national honor by descending to the level of the Islamofascists.

 

Ok General Herrington,

How exactly are you going to do this? What is your plan? And please, no Kerry answers: See my website.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Private Botwinick he just tells his NCO's that he wants the job done and the ROE's are in our favor and allow persuasion of a nuclear kind beginning in Tel Aviv and heading east till complete.

Jus' a lil' satire. Now what part is satire and what is SOP, that might not be open source.

 

Joseph, I don't have the intelligence information nor the military experience to know which avenue would be needed to obtain these objectives, but I believe that it is entirely possible that someone with command experience could do better than we see being done now. I would also guess that politics get in the way of accomplishing these tasks to a certain extent.

 

IOW,

You have no idea what you are talking about. Thank you for at least admitting that you don't have one half the information our president has when he makes a decision, and perhaps there are things he knows that you don't. It is real easy to second guess others as an armchair general when we don't have a clue what we are talking about. It is a lot harder to admit that we don't have a clue.:thumbs:

Joseph Botwinick

 

I disagree, Joseph. If the CIC and Rummy would let the generals make all the major decisions about how to conduct this and leave the politics out of it, things would not be in the shape they are in. Meanwhile, I guess you have heard the news reports that some of the cell phone numbers of this "democratically elected Iraqi administration" were on Al-Zarqawi's cell phone. The sooner some people wake up and realize they all hate us because we are infidels, the better. I still view the whole Iraq saga as a waste of American lives, limbs, and treasure. And yet, we are still constructing the largest US embassy in the world in Baghdad. Gee, maybe it was about the oil after all. Millions of dollars seem to be missing and funny thing, the administration and Congress (both parties) haven't even bothered to call anyone to account for all the missing money while our troops continue to "make do" with broken down vehicles, un-upgraded equipment and body armor and helmets, and etc. ad nauseum.

 

What you actually mean is if they would let the generals who say what you think they should do were allowed to make all of the decisions, right? The only problem is that they are folks like General Hack who also don't have all the intelligence and information that the president and the actual generals on the ground have and also don't have a clue what they are talking about. The generals on the ground are making the decisions. If this were truly a political war, it would have been over in 7 days like the first Gulf War. It is easy to play armchair general and second guess those who have all the information. It is a lot harder for someone to admit they have a clue what they are talking about. For that, I respect General Obi Wan Herrington a bit more than I did when we began this conversation. :thumbs:

Joseph Botwinick

 

The fallacy with that argument, Joseph, is that I'm sure the "generals on the ground", as you say, (who are not really calling the shots, but if you believe that, I sure can't change your mind) - anyway, the "generals on the ground" don't want their soldiers to have to "make do" with up-armoring themselves or the vehicles from scrap metal. And I have no doubt the "generals on the ground" have been frustrated retaking places like Ramadi and Fallujah again and again, and having to tell the troops to "stand down" because some politician (CIC or Rummy or whomever) decided to have a "truce" and some talks for political reasons. How many times are our troops expected to "take" a city only to give it back to terrorists? That has happened several times during this war. For specific dates and cities, just Google and you'll see this is true. I surely can't see our troops giving Normandy back to the Germans, but if Bush was the CIC back then, that's what would have happened, IMO.

 

Just like in Vietnam, LE, just like in Vietnam.