What do you think of our current President?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I am a big believer in a strong, volunteer military, and, as such, I am concerned about retention. Business tries to retain people by increasing benefits with time. Giving large benefits after a short time hinders that effort. Three years and a college degree is not much of a return on investment. We had to stay in the AF four (now five) years after pilot training and that was only one year of training (and some use of some expensive aircraft).

So, while I think the GI bill is great, I think some discipline is require to encourage the troops to stay. If we lose too many troops, there will be pressure for a draft and that will cause lots of trouble.

I will agree with you that there needs to be some kind of commitment. Like I said I served 6 years before my benefits became active. I think you should have to serve atleast 4 years.

The problem with retention however is not the benefits. It is the lack of downtime that is making people not want to stay in the military. Most soldiers are tired of being on there 4th and 5th deployment to a combat zone since 2001. Hell if I had not gotten out I would be on my 3rd since 2004 (I would be lying if I told you that was not the reason I got out).

The soldiers are burnt out. They deploy to Iraq for 14 to 15 months, come home for 6 and then get ready to deploy again. Our military is strapped thin and the soldiers can not bear this brunt much longer.

[Rook58]

The American and Brit intel communities had told Bush and Cheney that the WMDs were not there. They weren't "sloppy", they lied. At the same time Bush was making speeches saying he didn't want war and saw it as a last resort, he was privately telling members of the Senate, "F*** Saddam, we're taking him out." Even more and more members of his own party are finally going public acknowledging that he has lied over and over and that he has blown it in Iraq.

Re the imaginary WMDs, nobody is good enough at hiding things to have removed all traces so that our troops wouldn't have run across some of them, with the Iraqi military and government having collapsed as fast as they did. And if they'd had all those tons of stuff and tried to move it to Syria or anywhere else, we'd have seen the massive convoys from satellite intel and bombed them to oblivion.

I believe what the evidence tells me to believe, and the evidence says no WMDs. And regarding the media, the evidence says the mass media are not liberal, they're corporatist and present the world the way the corporations that own them tell them to. Rupert Murdoch liberal? Yeah, about as much as Attila.

It's amazing the way the neocons can control the executive branch, the judicial branch, and until 2006 the legislative branch, own all the major TV networks and print media, spend years using that power to get rid of safeguards protecting ordinary people against corporate malfeasance and slanting the tax system further in favor of corporations and the very rich, and still portray themselves as being plucky underdogs defending against some monstrous liberal media conspiracy. If there were really a bunch of liberals trying to twist the media, the owners would simply fire them.

You're right that this Democratic Congress hasn't done much. Pelosi and Reed are flops. The reason, according to Democratic party insiders, is that they have decided that letting things continue to go to pieces in Iraq and at home is going to help win the 2008 presidential election. I think that kind of cynical putting party power ahead of the good of the nation is evil no matter whether it's Pelosi and Reed doing this or Karl Rove lowering dirty politics to new levels on the other side. Bottom line, both parties are more about power and their own aggrandizement than public service. Maybe we need a new party that wouldn't fit the template of what's considered either conservative or liberal right now?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I have heard Lincoln used as an example against Bush for not firing Rumsfield, saying he replaced many generals to find a good one. Interestingly, in spite of all the terrible failures of the North early in the war, Lincoln never fired his Secretary of War (now Defense), Stanton.

Yes true. Although McCain has said he thinks Rumsfeld was terrible, I have a more charitable view. The job of the Scretary of defence IMO, should be {among other things!} planning & preparing to execute the strategy of the war, which went very well, in spite of some mistakes. The problem is when Bush's advice on the after-war planning came from Wolfowitz, Doug Feith & co. who had grossly unreralistic ideas for Iraq after the fighting, and for the lack of any real concrete plans.

Originally Posted by renrich

Lincoln made decisions based on a known, clear cut situation. His war was a conventional war-find the enemy army and destroy it. The strategy and tactics of the conventional portion of the Iraq war were flawless, in spite of the critics which said we did not have enough troops. Methinks the criticism of the conduct of the war against the insurgency by the Monday morning quarterbacks is all hindsight and doesn't meet my definition of useful or even very thoughful.

Well that's where I disagree with you. The after-war plans were very poor to say the least. To just sweep it under the carpet is just inviting a similar disaster later.

If you think that the war has been well run then I don't know what to say. If you agree with me that some major mistakes were made, it is a good idea to figure out how the planning stage fell apart, and how that can be corrected in the future. Alot of the ideas for Iraq came out of Rumsfeld's office, and if you look at the critisism's of Feith's work it comes from Generals Garner, Franks, Powell, Delong and others, hardly a bunch of rabid lefty democrats!

Douglas J. Feith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Renrich

Churchill made numerous mistakes. Gallipoli was another misstep on his part.

Gallipoli was a very bold plan, to be sure. It could very well have worked if the operation was not botched by the military high command.

Originally Posted by Renrich

Churchill made numerous mistakes. As you recall, Winston and his party were dismissed after the war in favor of rampant socialism. He still is counted as a great leader.

Are you criticizing the exaulted Winston Churchill?

IMO from 1940 - 1945 Churchill was one the UK's greatest Prime ministers - and one of it's worst defence ministers. If it wasn't for a brilliant, stubborn, crafty Irishman Gen. Brooke, as head of the Chiefs of Staff, to veto Churchill's wilder plans we would have been in a far worse situation

Originally Posted by Renrich

He was the proponent for the invasion of Italy which many "experts" count as a mistake.

Who is the expert you are citing? The push by the US War Department for a direct invasion of France in 1942-1943 versus the British "Mediterranean Plan", was later aknowleged by Eisenhower to be overly optimistic, and likely been a major military defeat.

He did make many mistakes, but Italy wasn't one of them IMO

Originally Posted by Renrich

The question you and the other critics of Bush should be asking yourself is where would the US and the western democracies be today if the US had elected "a less stubborn" president such as Gore or perhaps similar to Clinton.

True enough.

In 2000 I thought that McCain would have been a far better President than Bush, and I am even more sure now than then.

According to a review by the Miami Herald & other investigators the USA did elect Al Gore in 2000 {as strictly defined by Florida election statute}, but I am not sorry at all that he didn't become President.

My point here is not to trash Bush {he seems like a nice guy with some cr@ppy advisors}, but I hope that in the future the Republicans can come together to nominate a solid sensible conservative

[renrich]

Dav, I wish you would quit trying to confuse the issue with facts! FB, how can you make plans for a situation which you have not dealt with before. Please tell me when lately the US Army has gotten into a similar situation as in Iraq. In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disband the Iraqi army. It probably was a mistake not to have more combat troops in country. It certainly was a mistake to expect everyone in Iraq to suddenly become civil. I told a number of people in 1991 that our failure to take out Saddam had a silver lining as the aftermath of deposing him would be a big mess with many unknown factors. Did it occur to you that the reason we did not have more troops on the ground there in the beginning was that we did not have the men ready and able to deploy with the logistical support necessary. We were fighting a timeline to get the invasion started before summer began. Perhaps if our allies had been more willing to commit troops, we could have dealt better with the insurgency. My point is that all leaders make mistakes. I have built more than 200 homes, most of them not copies and have never finished a one without wishing that I had done something differently. There are a number of historians and retired generals in the US that believe the Italian campaign was not productive for the men and effort expended. How do you feel about Dieppe, an operation planned with Churchills approval?

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by Rook58

You're right that this Democratic Congress hasn't done much. Pelosi and Reed are flops. The reason, according to Democratic party insiders, is that they have decided that letting things continue to go to pieces in Iraq and at home is going to help win the 2008 presidential election. I think that kind of cynical putting party power ahead of the good of the nation is evil no matter whether it's Pelosi and Reed doing this or Karl Rove lowering dirty politics to new levels on the other side. Bottom line, both parties are more about power and their own aggrandizement than public service. Maybe we need a new party that wouldn't fit the template of what's considered either conservative or liberal right now?

Its good to see we eye to on this...and realy do see eye to eye on more then you think.. But no matter who is in power its all about the there party...Not about the good of the country..

WMD is a pissing contest...One thing thats upsetting to me is that people think that there is some way of not having to fight this fight...I will say it again ...If you think that we would not have to fight these mad bastereds at some point ...You have your head in the sand... We fight them now or your kids and grand kids will have to.....There has been no peace in that part of the world and never will be.. A war over there is just a stop gap deal ...And so is the war in Iraq....I'm not one to think the Iraq war can be won...Theres way to much put on the WMD... And not on what Saddom was and did do when he was in power...One more time the Lib's want to start there fight and info at the point they that makes them look good..Not all the way back to the start.. Saddom was a nut..And did need to be taken out... How can anyone look at what he did and not think that way...

[Njaco]

Hear, hear, Haz!!

Too much focal point has been on WMDs. I don't care. As stated by Bush shortly after 9/11, we're going to go after any nation who is terroristic or traffics in terrorism and THAT is the reason for Iraq. And we would have been there sooner or later because with Saddam continuing his actrocities, the liberals over here would have been crying out for something to be done - just as in the Sudan, just as in Rwanda, just as the Balkans, just as in Somalia, etc. The Conservatives beat them to the punch and now they're unhappy about it. They talk out the side of their mouths. especially now that things seem to be improving - slowly.

We would have been there regardless - just didn't happen on the democrat timeline.

Oh and the war was won. Its the OCCUPATION that has been alttle screwed. But we can thank the media for that confusion.

My point here is not to trash Bush {he seems like a nice guy with some cr@ppy advisors},

and that is the biggest point. I'm not at all happy with his advisors. That, IMHO, was where he did fail.

[renrich]

It appers that one of his bad choices was McClellan. Perhaps Bush has a problem letting down people who he has been close to?

[Trebor]

Bush should hav egotten the hell out of office when Kerry ran for president.

either one, Clinton or Obama, history will be made.

[Njaco]

jeez.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Trebor

either one, Clinton or Obama, history will be made.

Your kidding right?

Clinton would be the worst thing that could happen to this country.

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by Trebor

Bush should hav egotten the hell out of office when Kerry ran for president.

either one, Clinton or Obama, history will be made.

You seem to be a Dem Trebor ...And that ok ...I would call my self a conservative...Not real happy with any of the runners...But I feel a "need" to vote for Mccain... Clinton is a nut cases...And at this point will not get the in ..."I" say thank God...And shes died in the water...So skip her..

But I'm up in the air on Obama...All the BS roomers and all I see him say is change ...But can't find what he wants to change...???

So Trebor fill me in on why you are a Obama supporter and what he will do and why and how...Would love to have some one fill me in ... Maybe you can change my mind...If you go into a ball busting Bush rant like every Dem I ask about this just skip it... And don't forget the Dem's have controlled the Houses for some time and have done jack...And they need to take a big part of the cluster f%$ck the country is in ...Fact....

The stage is yours ...Make me vote Obama...I'll till the Republian troops to stand down as you speak...I'm not a Rep or Dem.. I'm a God fearing Conservative with "some" liberal views in life...You have fired the first shot on your Bush crack..And then ran ...Would love to here more then a one liner...Come out of your bunker and fill us in ... And if any other Democratic troops want to jump in ..Fire away...

Well..................................?

[renrich]

FB, this is not an attempt to beat a dead horse about FDR and his culpability in the US unpreparedness for WW2 but rather something of interest I have learned in rereading Lundstrom, "The First Team." This book is about US Navy fighter squadrons in the first six months of the war. It is incredible that the US Navy, part of the military of the USA, and the service that had begun rearming first of the three branches, was having the problems it had during that first six months. Firstly, there was a severe shortage of fighters to go aboard the carriers. We are talking quantity not quality. The carriers were supposed to have a squadron of 18 fighters with a few spares. Several times the carriers went into combat with less than 18 fighters. They stripped the Marine squadrons stateside to have fighters to send to Pearl. Sometimes they went into combat with a mixed squadron of Buffaloes and Wildcats or a mixed squadron of F4F3s and F4F3As. The F4F3A had a different engine with only a single stage supercharger so it had poor performance above 12000 or 15000 feet. The fighters in the early sorties had no armor and no self sealing tanks. The mechanics on board carriers installed boiler plate behind the seats for armor. The pilots had no survival gear on board so they were issued meat cleavers from the galley in place of knives. When the self sealing tanks were installed, some of them had glued seams that were dissolved by the gasoline and then stopped up the carbs and the engine quit. The fighters had no belly tanks and the Wildcats were seriously range challenged. Their combat radius was on the order of 175 miles. Some of the time because of lack of SBDs the F4Fs were used as bombers with two 100 pound bombs. None of the fighters had IFF at first so the radar on board could not distinguish between friend or foe. When they got IFF, they did not all have it and it often did not work. Many of the fighters did not have the homing device s and many of them did not work. When the Wildcats first went into combat they were not used to carrying the full ammo load of 420 rds per gun and the AC performance was degraded. Furthermore the ammo belts with a full load shifted under G and jammed the guns after one pass. Fighters were so short that SBDs were regularly used as VT CAPs and they had only two 30 cals forward firing at that stage plus one in the aft cockpit. They talked about an SBD chasing a Kate with a 3 knot speed advantage. They were so short of pilots that the fighter squadrons often had no spare pilots whatsoever. Some of these problems still persisted during the Coral Sea battle. Talk about FUBAR.

[Trebor]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Your kidding right?

Clinton would be the worst thing that could happen to this country.

history as in the first female president, and the first non-caucasian president.

[Njaco]

Trebor, please tell me that those are the not only things that would make you vote for a canidate for President. How about character, plans, background, ideas, and a whole host of other reasons as to why someone should be president. Just because they are female or a minority is rather racist and sexist - exactly what democrats are against. Wouldn't you agree?

[Trebor]

I really don't care who's in office. just as long as they can make this country better. Bush obviously didn't do that. I don't mean to be racist or sexist.