Bush puts an Admiral in charge of ground war in Iraq

Solve all the world's problems in this forum.
NOTE: While debate is a good thing, we expect all parties to have respect for individual opinions here.

Bush puts an Admiral in charge of ground war in Iraq

Postby jakimbro » Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:55 am

Yes. Its true. An Admiral in charge of the US armed forces in Iraq.
What a brilliant strategic mind Bush has!
*****************
'Clean sweep': Bush replaces top general in Middle East who opposed troop surge

http://www.rawstory.com

In what appears to be a military shakeup surrounding Iraq, President Bush has replaced both the top US general in the Middle East and the top general in Iraq, ABC NEWS is reporting on air.

Admiral William J. Fallon will replace Gen. John Abizaid, US commander in the Middle East, who announced his retirement in December and was expected to leave the post in March. Abizaid was a critic of Bush's efforts to add more troops to Iraq, but the circumstances of his early departure are unclear.

"The president wants a clean sweep," an official told ABC News.

"Fallon, who is in the Navy, is currently head of Pacific Command; he will be overseeing two ground wars, so the appointment is highly unusual," ABC reports.

According to a Kansas City Star article published December 24, "Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops. The decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest-ranking officer in Iraq. Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top commander in the Middle East, have long resisted adding troops in Iraq,

David Petraeus will replace General George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq. Casey originally opposed the President's plan to add troops in Iraq, arguing it could delay "the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world."

The LA Times recently reported that Abizaid's departure could clear the way for a more aggressive strategy in Iraq.

Excerpts from LA Times article:

#
Abizaid's planned departure clears the way for new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to recommend his own commander, a decision current and former Defense officials say is nearly as important as the new administration strategy expected to be unveiled by Bush in January.

These officials said Gates faces a clear choice between generals who have agreed with Abizaid's push to quickly hand over security responsibilities to Iraqi forces and a small but increasingly influential coterie of officers backing a more aggressive U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign.

According to Defense officials, Abizaid submitted his retirement documents just over a month ago, shortly before Donald H. Rumsfeld was pushed out as Defense secretary. One recently retired Army general said Abizaid had wanted to retire earlier but that Rumsfeld blocked the move, insisting his war commanders stay in place.

"Going to war isn't like having a regular job," said the retired general, who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity because Abizaid's plans had not been made public. "It's extremely stressful, it's heavily responsible. I can understand why he'd want to retire."

**********
WAR? Stressful? Who'd a thunk it? I thought they were going to shower us with flowers and candies...

Actually having an Admiral in charge of a desert war IS brilliant. We know he can't sink any of our ships that way. So its a win win situation!
Jerry Kimbro
<i>By Crom!</i>
User avatar
jakimbro
Bad Seed
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby AJRC_CS » Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:29 pm

It would seem that Admiral William J. Fallon is getting the job because he's a yes man, he will agree with anything he's told to agree with. Need more troops? No problem Mr Dubya. Lets really screw Iraq up and kill lots more men, yahoooo.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Bedford » Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:03 am

If he's Dubya's choice, he should do Bush's will.

If Clinton picked someone who did nothing but be a McDonalds employee, you would say he should do Clinton's bidding. So what?
:teach: The Professor Penguin of Brainformation :GF:

<i>"This is the greatest concentration of talent and genius, except for those times when Bedford eats alone.”</i>-- JFK, were he alive today.
User avatar
Bedford
Holier Than Thou
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyside of Louisville

Postby jakimbro » Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:51 am

No Pengy is always right. Nice pengy good pengy!

I'm just glad he settled on an Admiral to fight a desert war. I mean he could have chosen the Power Rangers or Buzz Lightyear or somebody.
Jerry Kimbro
<i>By Crom!</i>
User avatar
jakimbro
Bad Seed
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby AJRC_CS » Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:37 am

If he's Dubya's choice, he should do Bush's will.


God, i hope more people don't think like you, Bedford. If everyone did everything they were told to do without question, we might as well have an army of robot drones instead of rational thinking humans. We need military leaders who ask questions. Why do you think Iraq is such a mess now? Every time someone in the military questions Dubya he's replaced with a yes man. Yes men tell Dubya exactly what he wants to hear, not what is actually going on in reality.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Bedford » Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:53 pm

Those like you had no problem with Clinton having nothing but yes men around him. Why the double standard?
:teach: The Professor Penguin of Brainformation :GF:

<i>"This is the greatest concentration of talent and genius, except for those times when Bedford eats alone.”</i>-- JFK, were he alive today.
User avatar
Bedford
Holier Than Thou
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyside of Louisville

Postby AJRC_CS » Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:56 pm

I didn't like Clinton, so not sure what you're talking about, Bedford. If you're going to make up things about people, at least try and make them believable. Every politician surrounds himself with yes men, people who will kiss his arse at every opportunity. Clinton has nothing to do with this topic, yes he had yes men, but the topic is Dubya's yes men. Namely Admiral William J. Fallon, Dubya's new yes man.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Skinjob » Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:52 pm

Jakimbro, you said that you were getting out of politics. Thank God you're back again setting negative examples, making personal attacks, and spewing leftist BS. Are you sure that you weren't placed here by the RNC to spoil the Democrat's credibility? I like that distortion in your reasoning and the simplifications. :lol:

The distinction between various branches of the service blurs at the General and Admiral level. In fact, the Brits, all of them, were under General Dwight D. Eisenhower during WWII. They resented General Eisenhower, their "Supreme Allied Commander", but they licked his boots anyway. Often one sees Army Generals making decisions for the Air Force. General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, did that during the Gulf War, and so did Army General Powell, who made decisions for all branches of the service. Keep smilin.
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby AJRC_CS » Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:10 pm

Ahem, skinjob.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
General Schwarzkopf
General Powell

Now the clue is in the rank, skinjob.

[/b]Admiral William J. Fallon

Now a General in charge of ground troops makes good tactical sense, an Admiral in charge of ground troops is making a bad situation into an even worse one.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Skinjob » Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:46 pm

"Adm. Fallon began his Naval Aviation service flying in the RA-5C Vigilante with a combat deployment to Vietnam, transitioning to the A-6 Intruder in 1974. He served in flying assignments with Attack Squadrons and Carrier Air Wings for twenty-four years, deploying to the Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans embarked in USS Saratoga, USS Ranger, USS Nimitz, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and USS Theodore Roosevelt. He has logged more than 1,300 carrier arrested landings and 4,800 flight hours in tactical jet aircraft.

Adm. Fallon commanded Attack Squadron 65 (U.S. Navy) embarked in USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, Medium Attack Wing One at NAS Oceana, Va., and Carrier Air Wing Eight in USS Theodore Roosevelt during a combat deployment to the Persian Gulf for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Assigned as Commander, Carrier Group Eight in 1995, he deployed to the Mediterranean as Commander, Theodore Roosevelt Battle Group and commanded Battle Force Sixth Fleet (CTF 60) during NATO’s combat Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia. Adm. Fallon served as Commander, Second Fleet and Commander, Striking Fleet Atlantic from November 1997 to September 2000"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Fallon

He is not a Company Grade Officer, or a Field Grade Officer, he is a "Flag Officer", and as such is competent and qualified to administer any branch of the military. He doesn't make tactical decisions, his staff does. But, I'm sure that with his desert warfare experience that he can if he had to. The title is not as important as the man. Let's see if the Senate confirms him.
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby jakimbro » Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:26 pm

Skinjob: I try to get out of poltics- but its like being a Corleone in the Godfather: Everytime I try to get out- it keeps pulling me back in.

As to persoanla ttacks- I haven't aattacked anyone. Thios is an article that was posted on another website- AND a major news story. its a fact- not an attack. True- I have made a few sarcastic observastions, but hey So What.

As for an Admiral being able to do a Generals' job; well no one is disputing the Admirals experience in war. But- as the experts are fond of pointing out - Iraq is a new kind of war; an urban war- street fighting, insurgents are everywhere. The enemy could be anyone. How does flying bombing missions high over Vietnam qualify one for that? Also if Generals could do an Admirals job (or vice versa) - how come this kind of thing has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE in American military history?

Could it be- because its just a strategic blunder of the worst kind?
Jerry Kimbro
<i>By Crom!</i>
User avatar
jakimbro
Bad Seed
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby AJRC_CS » Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:49 am

Skinjob, you can post as much of his history as you like, it only confirms that he and his staff have no ground troop experience. Now we know the herd will accept anything Dubya tells them to accept, so if Dubya want an inexperienced ground troop tactician in charge of the ground troops, then the herd will accept it without question. But here in reality, putting an Admiral in charge of ground troops is sheer desperation.

This news points to a worrying situation where possibly most of the Generals have lost confidence in their Commander in Chief, if this has happened the death toll will double as more and more mistakes are made. It's ok for Dubya and all his chicken hawk followers safe at home with the knowledge they won't have to fight, but over in Iraq the ground troops have to follow orders whether they think it's a good order from a General or a bad one from an Admiral.

In all the 10 years i was in the Army, i never once had to take orders from an Admiral. To me that would have been sheer lunacy.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby jakimbro » Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:38 am

I've been racking my brains trying to think of one - just one Admiral who may have won a land battle with an army. All I can think of was the early Romans- people like Octavius, Marc Antony or Julius Caeser; but that was way before the invention of the modern naval with its high tech ships and specialized weaponry.

By and large Admirals seem to have fought only naval battles- unless they were landing troops or transporting them from a ground area.
Jerry Kimbro
<i>By Crom!</i>
User avatar
jakimbro
Bad Seed
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby StVandal » Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:50 pm

Regardless of facts on either side.. it's pretty hilarious.
Putting an admiral in charge of a ground war is exactly the type of thing we should expect from someone as mentally retarded as our president. haha..
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
User avatar
StVandal
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 4472
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby jakimbro » Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:04 pm

It will only be funny till the dying starts. I can hardly wait 'till Bush's speech tomorrow where he will reveal his 'new' strategy in Iraq. It's gonna be 'send more troops'. But not Army troops. Because there are not enough. National Guardsmen more like- taking them away from America where they are needed in case of another Katrina. Which will happen again- its only a matter of time.
Jerry Kimbro
<i>By Crom!</i>
User avatar
jakimbro
Bad Seed
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby Skinjob » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:25 pm

"Hypothesis Contrary to Fact" is a logical fallacy, Jakimbro.

If we claim to know with certainty what would have happened if a past event had been different, we commit the fallacy known as "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact".

Here is a link to one explanation of that fallacy.
http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/ ... tofact.asp
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby jakimbro » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:40 pm

:lol:
What ARE you blathering about, skinjob?
:tongue:
You are sounding as crazy as Pengy...
Jerry Kimbro
<i>By Crom!</i>
User avatar
jakimbro
Bad Seed
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Postby AJRC_CS » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:49 pm

You'd be used to the logical fallacies by now if you were still on CereScape, Jerry. It's the blather defence mechanism that comes into place when an argument has been lost.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Bedford » Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:17 pm

More like he won it but Jak is so blinded by ignorance and hatred, he can't see it. Which is why jak has always been a great source of entertainment, even more so than putting scotch tape on a cat's paw. :biggrin:
Last edited by Bedford on Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
:teach: The Professor Penguin of Brainformation :GF:

<i>"This is the greatest concentration of talent and genius, except for those times when Bedford eats alone.”</i>-- JFK, were he alive today.
User avatar
Bedford
Holier Than Thou
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 3:26 pm
Location: Sunnyside of Louisville

Postby jakimbro » Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:00 pm

I wasn't aware that we were arguing. The news article I posted is the facts. An Admiral in charge of a land war. Hmm Hmm Hmm...

What are you arguing about? And why would anyone put scotchtape on a cat? what has that got to do with anything?

Honestly- you two are out there- I mean WHOOSH!
Jerry Kimbro
<i>By Crom!</i>
User avatar
jakimbro
Bad Seed
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:16 am
Location: Tallahassee, Florida

Next

Return to Politics and Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron