Posted on 10/29/2002 6:52:40 AM PST by rightwing2
Edited on 10/29/2002 8:21:30 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
By the people responsible for military action. The President, the SecDef and National Command Authority. Not reservist washouts turned lawyer/writer/thinktank wannabe types.
"I think the issues raised by this poster are legitimate, although arguable."
I havent seen one issue he has raised since I have been involved with this thread other that to accuse me and others of attacking "Veterans" when we ourselves are Veterans who actually served active duty and in combat....unlike David.
"How could it NOT have an effect on our readiness?"
I think flexibility is what you are looking for....not readiness. You go on to say...
"Yes, we garrisoned Germany and Japan, but for a relatively brief period to safeguard reconstruction."
I see nothing with Iraq that wouldnt be in keeping with that same formula. It is a much better example than Beirut...we werent helping Beirut reconstruct after we had defeated its military. We were standing between two warring factions. Their is no connection.
"although Cold War considerations keep us in Germany even to this day (a chilling possibility in the Middle East as well)."
Chilling for who? Cowards? Our forces based permanently in the gulf will do more to insure stability then leaving Iraq to its own devices will. Wouldnt you agree?
"I have the utmost faith in our military; they've defeated far stronger opponents than Saddam Hussein. But we should never invoke their sacrifices lightly, nor should we use them as pawns in a deadly game without due consideration of alternatives."
Those are your assumptions. Other than contrarians throwing around flighty doomsday scenarios to see who can get the most press, I dont see anyone playing a game.
You didnt provide me with the post. ~Grin~
"For a jarhead, you are quite the annoying petty little pipsqueak. LOL! Most Marines I have met are men of honor so it appears that you are the exception."
HEY! You're attacking Veterans of the United States and dishonoring the graves of all Marines flowing back to Tun tavern. </ sarcasm> Sounds cheesy doesnt it? If you are willing to come at me like that then you have no more standing to accuse others of attacking veterans.
You make this easy.
"And of course you refuse provide your name, identity or occupation as I had requested"
Funny, I asked the same of you but to no avail....You have not provided your name either. You have never asked my occupation before. I am a Case Manager.
"I responded quite candidly to nearly all of your questions in good faith."
Haha...save the Lawyer jargon BS. You have repeatedly FR mailed me with nonsense the entire time. I see you didnt mention whether you wanted me to post your FR mails sent to me. :)
"Apparently you have much more to hide than I previously imagined."
If you can show any of us where I have ducked a question....I can show where you have....then please feel free. :)
"Gunrunner2 on the other hand..."
Oh please..HAHAHAHA...Gunrunner2 has your number and was a bigger cheese in the DoD than you as well as he served in the Gulf War [in combat]....you keep trying to keep him at bay by agreeing with him and drolling on about things he hasnt addressed but you havent contradicted anything he has said concerning Iraq. I find that odd considering the two of you are on the opposite ends of the spectrum concerning going to War with Iraq.
As for all of your "position" dropping...is that supposed to impress any of us? Wow, you run around with alot of poag brass types and administrative MOSs within the DoD. You can deflect from yourself all you'd like but the fact of the matter is that you have absolutely zero combat experience yet you pretend to be the armour bearer for Men better than you....Who do have combat experience. Did Hannity take you up on your challenge to defend Soldiers with Combat experience? I would've found that hilarious. An admin poag pretending to be the standard bearer for real Soldiers.
Reality is that you are an outsider. You have never gotten your boots muddy in Iraq. I have. Gunrunner2 has. Others on this thread have. You havent.
I am very impressed with your ability to attend a million and one schools and built quite the collection of degrees. So has Chompsky. Big deal. HAHAHA... did you attend SAMS?
"How long have you worked at the Pentagon or for the DoD or even the national security industry?"
I answered that already...you are gonna have to pay attention...four years. Wasnt behind a desk either. It was behind .50 Cal, MP5SD, M16-A2, MK-19, AT-4, A-4, M-60, Calicos, Steyrs and HKs. Training Middle Eastern and North African SpecOps as well as crosstraining NATO types, ie Spanish and British Royal Marines...etc, etc. You cant touch me Bro....stick with the State side mumbo jumbo. ~Grin~
"How many times have you briefed generals and members of the Senior Executive Service at and around the Pentagon on national security issues?"
I have briefed Generals twice and had several informal discussion with Marine Brass that filled out combat billets. ow many times have you rappeled into enemy territory or dropped Iraqis with double taps [What's your body count?] or been hugged and kissed by Kuwaitees?
You're a wannabe. Your name dropping, attempts to paint yourself as in the loop or as a combat veteran give away your own need for affirmation. You dont belong to anything but a coterie of administrative types. Most of them have combat experience....you dont so you cover it over with an endless line of wallpaper.
Cheesy Bro...and for "real" Veterans, transparent.
Save the repetition and simply provide the link to your initial asking. Seems simple to me.
As to my name. I find it peculiar that you would righteously demand my name and yet you have not provided your own.
"Now you tell me you’re a case manager. What the heck does that mean? That doesn’t tell me anything."
You asked me my occupation. I simply provided it. Considering your unwillingness to provide any information past being in the Army /Armor I dont see a real need to divuldge one thing about myself. You dont have to like it...but you'll live with it.
"I asked you where you worked and what you did there."
You asked me no such thing. Provide the link to the original question if you did. ~Grin~
You have a law degree? You need to head back to School and grab a debating degree to tag on your wall...cause you suck at it.
"So you attack me for serving in the military but not in combat as was the case with President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld..."
LOL You gotta be kidding me...you consider yourself in the same league as the President and the SecDef? Forgive me. I didnt know you got daily briefings from both the CIA and FBI. I was unaware of your unfettered access to DIA information. What was I thinking? HAHAHA
"those who served in the military should have a bit more credibility to speak on matters of war than those who did not"
Simply false.
Military Service in and of itself is no qualification to speak on matters of war. By your simple math I could get together a bunch of Air Force payroll clerks and they would be more qualified to speak on War then whoever the President of the United States is.
Also by your math the implication is that Other soldiers who have combat MOSs [yourself not included] and have seen combat [yourself not included] are the oracles of all things pertaining to War and are simply unfallible in their own judgments. That is also wrong.
You have chosen out of an impure motive to put forward the objections of some soldiers with combat experience [yourself not included] and disregard the agreement and approval by other soldiers with combat MOSs & experience [yourself not included].
"Thus by your implausable standard, the President is not a "real vet", Rumsfeld is not a "real vet""
I may be mistaken but I believe that both the President and the SecDef had combat MOSs that they served in....you did not. You're veteran alright...for all of what two years of reservist duty in a support billet, intermingled with some rear echelon active duty?...but you didnt have a combat MOS and you didnt join as an active duty soldier. You were a support reservist who was placed on active duty for a time. Two very different things.
"You served as a Marine grunt for four years including some time in Desert Storm and retired as a buck sergeant. That’s all fine and good, but why have you targeted a fellow vet like me..."
A. What is a buck sergeant? I'm a former Marine. You are not a fellow veteran comparable to me in any regard other than you drew a Federal government paycheck. You have absolutely zero combat experience and you've killed nobody in warfare nor have you taken enemy fire. You may have had a uniform on but dont try to get the rest of the users here lost in the sauce. Civilians respect blanket service. Soldiers respect combat MOSs and combat experience....you have neither.
"You are correct that it is wrong for anyone including myself to impugn the reputation of a fellow vet, but then again it was not I who started insulting fellow vets..."
That is your excuse for painting with the same brush that others have used?
"He started it"?
Grow up. If you do it then you cannot talk to anyone else about it. Sounds like Islamic terrorist logic to me.
"You yourself admitted that with your comment that “the only vet you were denigrating was (me)”. If its wrong for me, its wrong for you."
You & Veteran are two different words. Eitherway...remove the needle from your own eye.
"By that high standard, the President and the Secretary of Defense would have no authority to speak on matters of war"
Again with the hubris...the President and SecDef are both priveledged to far more intel on foreign militaries, governments and weapons programs than you...or I...or the retired soldiers or retired statemen or the current stable of porcelain soldiers in DC.
"Being a low-ranking ground pounder during Operation Desert Cakewalk doesn’t mean that you are more educated and capable of debating what should be our National Military Strategy than I am."
Nor does plastering your wall with framed degrees and surrounding yourself with disgruntled contrarians within the DoD make you more capable of dabating the strategy or tactics to be employed in Desert Cakewalk II than I am. You have think tank experience...not real World Military experience. ~Grin~
"Why don’t we just drop all the crap about who has more authority to speak on matters of war and return to a more rational issues based discussion? If you agree, then I will be happy to address your latest questions regarding my thoughts on Iraq."
I agree...
I would honestly like to hear your take.
That means nothing. What was your MOS?
"If you would only stop lying about me..."
I have not lied about you...you have refused to provide your MOS [job] in the Army. You say you were in Armor. Fine. They've got typist in Armor. They've got Intel in Armor. They've got Motor -T in armor. They've got cooks in Armor.
Strike a nerve?
A reserve unit is by definition "support". I may not comprehend Army lingo but I am more than competent as to identifying your makeup.
"You don't even know what you are talking about."
No need to defend myself, I'll let other people here be the judge of that.
"I tell you repeatedly I served as an Armor officer for several years"
Three years now? As what? A cook? Were you in charge of the chow hall on base?
"Your continued and knowing lies about my service prove that you have no shame!"
Again with the lying accusation...I have not lied. You had some sort of support MOS and you were a reservist. Now I may be discerning a little because you wont come clean but I have not lied. You throw around words like honor and then you accuse other Men [Better Men] of lying. I dont think you know what Honor means.
"No wonder you got out on an other than honorable discharge Corporal"
HAHAHAHA...Bro, shots in the dark only give away your desperation. You'd know that if you had any combat experience. ~Grin~ And punching out a loudmouth full of **** officer [Like yourself] only got me 30 days restricted duty....not an OTH. Haha... :o)
"you are a hopeless lying idiot."
Again with the language of honor.
"I gave you the opportunity to redeem yourself by answering my questions about you and ceasing your continued lies about my service and urged you to return to a more rational issue based insult free discussion."
This'll be the second Dramaqueen Alert I have had to drop on you. I responded to all of your remarks and said I agree.
"No sense wasting any more time with someone as dishonorable and dishonest as you."
Dont be so tortured. Bitterness can cause physical ailments you know? I am sorry if unmasking your slight of hand oblique routine has upset you but in the end like Lincoln said...the sting in the rebuke, is the truth.
:o)
No wonder you got out on an other than honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________
Source? You better have some real good back-up for this assertion...because if not true, this IS slanderous. And lest you forget, we KNOW who you are.
Plus to get service information he would've had to have my name and SSN. The fact that he has repeatedly asked for my name shows you that he had neither.
He's pissed because I know so much about him and he knows [or comprehends] zero about me.
Thanks for your earlier remarks.
:o)
"There have been very few missile attacks on our aircraft bombing Iraq. Then again, if our planes were not bombing Iraq, Iraq would have no need to defend itself by trying to shoot them down. Look the bottom line is that the Administration has no business putting our pilots in harms way by asking them to engage in provocative enforcement of the so-called UN no fly zones which are not UN no fly zones at all but US no fly zones since no UN resolution covers them. To call Iraqi attempts to shoot down US and UK warplanes bombing their country "hostile acts" is extremely Orwellian to say the least."
Ping to the rest.
Iraq is led by a mad bastard who has a bad habit of invading other countries and a penchant for chemical and nuclear weapons. He has been lucky to hang onto his skin. He tries to shoot at UK and USA planes, he should die.
Enough with tolerating this nonsense - the 3rd world, such as it is, should be told clearly: put your fanatics down, or die.
Regards, Ivan
Because they won't let us bomb Berkley!
I just snorted Orange Slice through my nose.
_______________________________________________________
Coalition Aircraft Fired on Over Northern Iraq
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 30, 2002 -- Coalition aircraft enforcing the Northern No-fly Zone over Iraq dropped precision-guided munitions today on elements of Saddam Hussein's air defense system.
The coalition aircraft attacked after Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fired on them. All coalition aircraft returned to base safely.
Combined task force officials would not discuss where the incident occurred or what the aircrafts' target was.
The coalition aircraft struck immediately after the provocation. "We do not do a measured response," said Air Force Maj. Scott Covode, a spokesman at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey. "We do an immediate self-defense response."
The Iraqi air defenses fired on American and British aircraft doing a routine patrol of the no-fly zone. It was the third time in October that Operation Northern Watch aircraft responded to such provocation. Covode said it was the 13th time this year that coalition aircraft dropped ordnance and the 71st time that Iraq has fired on coalition aircraft operating in the area.
Coalition aircraft patrolling the Southern No-fly Zone have responded six times this month to Iraqi provocations.
Officials said most of the provocations have been Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery. Air Force officials said the Iraqis occasionally fire surface-to-air missiles, but without radar guidance. The tactic prevents coalition aircraft from locating radars, but impairs missile accuracy. "Dumb" missiles, however, are still dangerous, officials said.
Source: HERE
_______________________________________________________
I guess it depends on how one defines "very few" missle attacks.
And from another source: The Washington Post so I am only posting an excerpt. Source: HERE
________________________________________________________
U.S. Asserts Inspection Role for Planes Over Iraq 'Aerial' Surveillance for Weapons Is Valid, Rumsfeld Says
By a Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 1, 2002; Page A13
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asserted for the first time yesterday that U.S. and British warplanes enforcing "no-fly" zones over Iraq are performing "aerial" weapons inspections under a United Nations resolution, a statement that expands the stated mission of the air patrols.
The U.S. government has long justified the missions as necessary to protect Iraqi Shiites and Kurds from helicopter assaults and aerial bombardments by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's military.
But Rumsfeld, briefing reporters at the Pentagon, argued that the no-fly zones, which were established in northern and southern Iraq after the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, have existed both to protect Iraqi citizens under U.N. Resolution 688 and to perform "aerial inspections" under U.N. Resolution 687.
Resolution 688 was passed in 1991 to protect Iraqi citizens from military attacks by their government. Resolution 687, passed the same year, mandated Iraq's disarmament and required that Baghdad allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country to certify it was no longer producing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
But Rumsfeld said that enforcement of the northern and southern no-fly zones have existed as "air components" of the U.N. inspections regime, which ended in 1998 when U.N. inspectors withdrew after repeated disputes with Hussein.
"Aerial inspections, however, continued," Rumsfeld said. "As coalition aircraft attempt to enforce the no-fly zones, they conduct aerial surveillance to help determine compliance with U.N. resolutions 688 and 687, which bans nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."
Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld dismissed criticism by Russia's foreign ministry that recent attacks by U.S. and British warplanes enforcing the no-fly zones against Iraqi air defenses have made it more difficult for U.N. efforts to resume weapons inspections in Iraq.
Rumsfeld said the attacks have come in response to fire directed at coalition warplanes by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries. Joining Rumsfeld, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, showed reporters video footage taken by F-16 fighters and Predator surveillance drones of Iraqi anti-aircraft shells and surface-to-air missiles being fired at coalition jets.
Myers also released statistics showing that Iraq fired at coalition aircraft 67 times in September, including nine times last weekend. So far this year, he said, Iraq has fired at coalition jets 406 times.
Myers said coalition aircraft responded to Iraqi attacks 32 times in 2000 and 2001 and 34 times so far this year, including a series of attacks last month against radar sights and communications "nodes" linked to those radars. While coalition rules of engagement have always allowed warplanes to target communications centers in response to hostile fire, Rumsfeld recently directed that they place more emphasis on those installations when returning fire.
One U.S. official said Rumsfeld's comments represented the first time that a senior administration official had argued that warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones were actually performing weapons inspections under U.N. auspices. Outside experts agreed.
______________________________________________________
I would say Iraq is escalating the attacks. And here again, as we see in the WA Post story, rightwing2 disagrees with his boss, Donald Rumsfield, as to the legality of the no-fly zones.
I have NO idea where rightwing2 gets his information, but I would say it is flawed. Thanks for the 'ping'.
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.