Fresh Agitprop Here!
Posted on 05/02/2006 10:02:10 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[Caspar] Weinberger [said] that the United States would make no more half-hearted interventions, such as in Vietnam, or the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which occurred on Weinberger's own watch. ...[snip] [But] today we have Americans watching over civil war in Iraq, not Lebanon. ...
Weinberger preached that a war plan had to be "wholehearted": Preparation often precludes the need to fight. So in Iraq, where was the overwhelming force needed to subdue a country of 25 million? Where was the training for counterinsurgency? The adequate armor? The effective anti-improvised explosive device technology?
In fact, there was a disgraceful lack of military preparation for Iraq, and the war hasn't been handled well since, either. Still, it was nice of Rumsfeld to show up and eulogize Weinberger - even if Rumsfeld's presence at the funeral highlighted the stark contrast between the performance of the two Defense secretaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Weinberger was the weenie in the Reagan administration who advised that we cut-and-run after 243 Marines were killed in Lebanon by a terrorist in 1983. George Schultz wanted to hit Syria and Lebanon, but Weinberger said no.
Rumsfeld was responsible for the death of more terrorists in the first 24 hours of the Afghanistan invasion than Weinberger managed to hit in eight years.
This article shows why.
Correction: Reagan said no. It was Reagan who was president, not Weinberger - so it was the "weenie," in the (quietly voiced) opinion of the maniac neoconservatives who've gotten us bogged down in Iraq, who was the real weenie. Reagan would never have launched this ridiculous invasion of Iraq- - but then, he was a "weenie," wasn't he?
You really ought to get a new picture - - try John Paul II's. I agree 100 percent with his strong opposition to the US invasion of Iraq. Try calling John Paul II a "Neville Chamberlain"
"Weinberger was the weenie in the Reagan administration who advised that we cut-and-run after 243 Marines were killed in Lebanon by a terrorist in 1983."
The principle error there, I belive, was placing those marines in that position - particularly so soon after Vietnam when we had supposedly leared the lesson of not doing things half way.
Good point. Cut and run was a bad idea. They only respect strength.
Weinberger was carrying out the policies of his boss - Ronald Reagan. Guess you think Reagan was also full of s --- . Sorry I don't agree. I think he was the greatest president of the 20th century. I campaigned for him in 4 elections --- but the johnny-come-latelies around here dare question my credentials as a conservative because (like Pope John Paul II) I think the invasion of Iraq was wrong.
"Weinberger is full of $hit."
What is the possible benefit of calling Ronald Reagan's secretary of defense names so soon after he has died?
Pinkerton had best stick to making lukewarm arguments to the ridiculous rants of Neal Gabler on Fox News Watch because it's clear he knows nothing about Defense Secretaries.
Because neocons like Pukin dog don't really like Reagan. He was a real conservative, not a "new" or "neo" conservative. He knew you didn't have to invade a country to defeat it. He beat the Soviet Union by overwhelming military buildup and relentless containment. The neocons, instead, have gotten us bogged down in a ridiculous invasion of a country that posed no threat to the US. Reagan wouldn't have launched the Iraq invasion - and they know it. So they dont' like him
Nope. Neville is perfect for you.
You don't think Reagan would have fired up the F-18s if both Schultz and Weinberger had said "go"?
It takes a man to fight a war, and Weinberger was second-tier in the risk department. Oh, he had Grenada and bombing Khadafi's tent, but those were pinpricks.
While Reagan is to be lauded for bringing down the Soviet Union, we could have had a major affect on old man Assad and the Hezbollah with some massive bombing after the death of those Marines. And nobody would have stopped us.
Weinberger's the guy who would be holding Rumsfeld's coat as he fought.
As for the invasion of Iraq, you're in the minority on this forum in opposition to that invasion, and you always will be.
Pukin Dog is a Jooooo? I didn't know.
We won the war in a week. The post-war mop-up could have been handled smoother. And it would have gone better if the "insurgency" didn't correctly assess the anti-American nature of our media and enlist them to the cause.
They know they can't come close to defeating the US military. They are gambling that they can cause enough damage to weaken the resolve of the American public to see the job done. People like Pinkerton are more valuable to them than a thousand IEDs.
And Chamberlainbuff is worth at least a hundred.
I'll say it again. My position is 100 percent the same as Pope John Paul II's. The neocons didn't like him either. There was a hateful article in the WSJournal editorial page that condemned him for opposing the Iraq invasion. It breathed as much hate toward him as you do, consistently, toward me. I take it as a badge of honor that I'm receiving the same kind of vitriol that the pope got from the more fevered Iraq invasion supporters. If I'm with JPII, I'm in good company!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.