Skip to comments.
US generals ‘will quit’ if Bush orders Iran attack
The Sunday Times (U.K.) ^
| 02/25/07
| Michael Smith and Sarah Baxter
Posted on 02/24/2007 4:37:37 PM PST by Pokey78
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-267 last
To: PhilDragoo
Time to arm with Resolve and Kick Darius's Ass![Iran].....Gates of Fire....Persia must Fall!
To: RightWhale
Always listen to experts.
They'll tell you what can't be done, and why.
Then do it.
LAZARUS LONG
262
posted on
02/26/2007 5:19:54 AM PST
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(Vote for RINOS, lose and complain by sending a self-abused stomped elephant.)
To: editor-surveyor
Any general with that mindset should be retired now. Ditto that. GWB should interview each one in turn and ask for their commitment to follow orders. Any doubt or hesitation should be met with an immediate relief of duties.
263
posted on
02/26/2007 6:44:20 AM PST
by
TChris
(The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
To: oneamericanvoice
Actually you want Generals to resign if they feel the mission cannot be accomplished with the resources so apportioned orif some aspect of the mission is not militarily sound.. far different that agreeing or disagreeing about the mission itself.
Thats not what these guys are doing ... They are directly engaging in political theater as Generals(If they exist). That is clearly unlawful under the UCMJ..
The problem here is with 900 some active Generals and Admirals you are going to have percentage that will disagree with every action just due to the sheer numbers. At less than 1% of the total number they are statistically meaningless.
If a General resigns because he does not believe a mission can be accomplished properly due to tactical or logistical considerations which are correctable and after requesting they be corrected that is not done.
That's legitimate and honorable.
These Generals (if they exist) are resigning ostensibly because they disagree with the mission. That is no more lawful than Watanabe's Baloney, no difference.
W
264
posted on
02/26/2007 3:09:34 PM PST
by
WLR
("fugit impius nemine persequente iustus autem quasi leo confidens absque terrore erit")
To: WLR
I was never in disagreement with you. Isn't it funny that the "generals and admirals" weren't named....I, too, don't believe they exist. However, as you pointed out, there will always be those that disagree with the way a mission is carried out. When I served, as did my Father and Mother, I would never have expressed such sentiments publicly.
To: mkjessup
Yep, the B.S. meter is definitely on TILT.
266
posted on
02/27/2007 2:33:19 PM PST
by
rdl6989
To: AmericanInTokyo
"
One thing is for sure, and we would be stupid not to learn from our mistakes. If we DO attack Iran, we damned well better have the facts 100% incontrovertibly right, our intelligence rock solid, and such a massive, quick and unmerciless plan of attack, mop up and occupation/reconstruction that any remaining Iranian Revolutionary resistance will last no longer than a fortnight at most, rather than nearly four years of bogged down, garrisoned, IED, guerilla warfare and suicide bomb attack crap like we've had now in Iraq, which has facilitated a major split in the country and fed the likes of anti-patriotic, anti-troop CNN.
Our troops deserve it. Victory, absolute and unconditional at that, or don't go in at all. "
What you said.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260, 261-267 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson