What is Digg?125 Comments
- Paroparo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+118I'm guessing more like a "We refuse to take orders, publicly claim you are an idiot, and resign all at once" kind of revolt.
- lifeandtimes, on 10/11/2007, -12/+61What kind of revolt? A military coup revolt? Or a "We disagree with you, but you're the president" revolt? The former has zero chance of ever happening.
- TexMurphy, on 10/11/2007, -10/+45You will not see US Generals refuse to take orders.
You will not see US Generals publicly resigning.
.
The US Generals will hit Bush were it hurts, in the public media.
.
Imagine a US Division commander going on "meet the press" and calling President Bush and the Neocons incompetent.
.
Imagine a US Division commander going on "meet the press" and calling Iraq a lost cause because of Bushes leadership..
.
I hope the Republicans get punished in the 2008 elections for there incompetence in running the Iraq war. - abburdlen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+35More along the lines of publicly resigning rather than follow President Cuckoo Bananas orders.
- roho76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+26The elections are in Nov. '08' but GDub don't leave till Jan. '09'.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+274 years too late
- bupublue, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22No, NOT to ThinkProgress. To Cythia Tucker's "Atlanta Journal-Constitution colleague Jay Bookman." What so many people fail to understand is that, just because you saw something on a particular website, it does not mean that it originated there.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Someone needs to heavily medicate him until then. I don't want him going "Nixon meets Dr. Strangelove" on our asses.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20That's not treason. They may be relieved of command for insubordination. But it's in no way treason.
But let's say that they did try to prosecute the generals. How far do you think that would go with a hostile congress nipping at Dumbya's heals and impeachment looming on the horizon? It would go nowhere. - moman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+25@texmurphy
"You will not see US Generals refuse to take orders.
You will not see US Generals publicly resigning."
Actually I believe they will do both and I wish them all the luck in doing so. The Bush administration has the uncanny ability to f**k up everything it does then blame it on the peons. Thats why there are no takers for the "war czar" position, and thats why everyone (including Tony Blair himself and now the US military generals) are jumping ship now to avoid the heated confrontation/impeachments which is (hopefully) coming soon.
Is it just me or do I see this as the US generals crying out to congress to hold Bush and his cronies responsible for the trangedy and the genocide that they have caused. Contrary to what the Bush administration is trying to brainwash everyone with, I do not support the war but I do support the troops, and believe that most wan't to be home with their loved ones. I believe they are all crying out (maybe not literally but in heart) for the American people to get off our lazy asses and do something about our corrupt government inorder to bring them home. Afterall while we are here (myself included) commenting on digg about our freedoms and how the gov. is taking them away, they are out there getting themselves blown up and missing their families very much.
Support the troops by holding those accountible for the slaughter going on in Iraq and other places around the world, and by bringing the troops home. - Comatose51, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13You ever seen an army operate with no generals? All they need to do is resign to revolt. And please look up the definition of treason.
- InetRoadkill, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Yes, since we installed a friendly puppet govt in Iraq, it's no longer a war. It's more properly called a military occupation.
- comm87, on 10/11/2007, -5/+18Revolts by the military happen, just look at the rest of the capitalist world.
- Mithrandir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11As far as I can research, 17 Lieutenant Colonels and 5 full Colonels have been killed in Iraq so far. This is emblematic of a force that fights from the front, and doesn't lead from a cushy base in Florida...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Escalation
- otep, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14they obviously hate america.
woooo, the sarcasm is just flowing from me today. niiice. - jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10But they can pretty much resign whenever they choose. If they all say, "Bush is an idiot" and resign they haven't committed a crime.
- totorototoro, on 10/11/2007, -7/+17Is it really a "surge" when it goes on for this long? Isn't it really more like an "occupation"?
- nils, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Well, the US military *is* sworn to protect the country from internal enemies as well.
Cheney and Bush *definitely* count as such. They have raped the US democracy more than any other administration ever has.
And congress and the senate have played into their hands.
An actual military coup in the US, with a restoration of all the freedoms that have been taken away from people would not be a bad thing. - OneHine, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12@bupublue
You're dealing with hdtvdust, a guy who makes Ann Cpulter look rational and ethical by comparison. I wouldn't expect much understanding. - pimpdown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I love the surrender talk. How can you surrender something that does not belong to you in the first place(Iraq)? All the deaths after the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam are all ways brought up. But do you notice no one ever says I wish my Dad had died trying to stop it. We are now supposed to believe the invaders care so much about the lives of Iraqis that they can't leave. I guess that's why they call them rag heads, sand ***** and other derogatory names. If we cared that much about there lives we would not have sent Chemical Rumsfled over there to shake Saddam's hand in 1984. Did you hypocrites forget that? Nice try pretending you care about there lives. You just destroyed there country and killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Not to mention the rape and torture.
- lifeandtimes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Guess what? The people you choose to lead your troops at the highest level shouldn't be where they can get killed. That's how generals and (lt)colonels are supposed to act...you don't actually know much about how the military works, do you?
- jm9206755, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10The whole war can be summed up in one word: hubris.
- Comatose51, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10To paraphrase a professor: "A soldier charging into battle is bravery. An officer charging into battle is mass murder." No military unit can operate effectively without its officers and to deprive them of their officers is to endanger the entire unit. That's just not how modern warfare operates. Warfare has always been about strategy and tactics, not banzai charges. There have been exceptions to this rule, such as Rommel, but modern communication equipment has eliminated the need for that. Rommel was nearly killed once when he was out scouting by himself.
- akirksey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Surrender?
Funny buzz word your using there, since the term applies only in war. We won the battle of Iraq four years ago, receding an occupation is not surrender, and no matter how much neo-con ***** Cheney sucks, it never will be. Furthermore, if we've surrendered anything because of this war and 9/11 it's our civil rights and the concept of 'servant government'. So no matter what you Nazi loving neo-cons think surrender is or isn't, we've already surrendered everything that mattered you ass hat. And no doubt thanks to people like you who like to make believe that your pundits carry the weight and authority of Jesus Christ. - pimpdown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9On what gounds? If they resign and declare him the ass clown most people already know him to be. Except the only racial demographic that ever supported him in the first place.
- brister, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I didnt say i was different, i was commenting on how complacent we all are. No one wants to hear it, but its true. We take so much crap and don't do anything because it would mean gettting off the couch or whatever.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9John Stewart put it really well when he said that we're fairly affluent and few of us are actively suffering so it is hard to spur people on to action. And that is why a draft is not on the horizon because that would actually hit people where they live and force them to look at how this "war" is being run.
Paraphrased, of course. - kristov, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9I guess it would be good if they grew some balls and tried to save some of these young men we are sending to their deaths based on our President's lies and propaganda.
- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7That should have already happened. The Democrats have proven not to take any action once they got the power to do so. These "investigations' are too little and too late. They are just buying time for the next "catalyzing" event. The Globalists are winning.
- ohmar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yeah, kinda like you are doing right no.
- roho76, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15This is getting old already. This administration ***** up and never gets in trouble. I'm moving to Antarctica. Nobody wants to kill each other there and at least I'll survive an extra couple of days after the radioactive fallout begins when W pushes the button. And all the nay Sayers can eat a dick. You know who you are, you W dick suckin *****. You're so used to the smell of your own ***** that you think it's hamburgers.
Peace - wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8It's an escalation of force, undertaken during a military occupation. "Surge" is a ***** weasleword, made up by pasty-faced Wahington DC ass-pirates. It sounds like a ***** laundry soap. And you bought it.
- dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Apparently, treason isn't a big deal anymore. Just ask Valerie Plame.
- Rhino2, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8
"Someone needs to heavily medicate him until then. I don't want him going "Nixon meets Dr. Strangelove" on our asses."
/Quote:
"Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is still as drunk and stupid as ever. The only thing that's changed is me. I've become bitter and, lets face it, crazy over the years, an if I'm still in office after all this, then I'll sell our children's organs to zoos for meat, and I'll break into people's houses at night and wreck up the place! Mwahahahahahaha!!" - Gw Bush. - akirksey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I actually gave it some thought. I admit that my response was pure venom. But I'm tired of being complacent and kicked around by opinions, like yours, that are not very well thought out,
Warring against al Qaeda is something that if done militarily has to be enforced through a multitude of nations and their police authority. Diplomatic efforts to put pressure on countries that are aiding terrorist cells was always the purist form of action. Violating any other nation's sovereignty gives the right to any other nation to do the same to us. Sovereignty is kind of an unspoken rule between nations. Going in there in the first place was wrong. Staying now is wrong. The Iraqi people have a responsibility for themselves to decide if they want to continue committing acts of violence against each other, and if allowing terrorists to remain in their new Democratic state is really something they want. We however have made the decision for them.
Saddam was already fighting al Qaeda without any encouragement from the United States. So to say that we need to stay in Iraq to fight al Qaeda seems suspect. In theory it sounds right, given present circumstances and the fear that the middle east will turn into a slaughtering ground, but whether or not that will come to pass cannot be really known until after we do leave. The fallacy presented in your argument contends that battling a global terror organization means concentrating the entire bulk of the United States military in one country. The approach to battling civilians attempting to kill others through violent means to bring about their own political agenda is far to expensive both to our troops and to the country which is accumulating the most serious national debt of all time implementing a security strategy that is flawed from the start.
Hope that's a bit more civil for you. Sorry for being kind of a punk ass earlier. - moman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Yea them resigning and then being charged with treason makes perfect sense. After that who do you think is going to take the position? Its like a job recruiter saying, "you know the last person who held your job was put in jail just because he tried to quit; so when do you want to start???!!!"
- wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Ask yourself: "who benefits?" The price of oil is sky high. Record profits for oil companies. How oil-connected is the Bush administration? They are all oilmen. They don't want it to end. They want to keep the price up.
- pimpdown, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5First I did not say people in the forum used those terms. Our dear soldiers use those terms. It did work well in Mogadishu because the U.S. got off land that did not belong to them. ( A theme that runs Through history where colonial invaders show up on land they have no right to be on.) Once again check the usual racial demographic and you will see a clear pattern. Or you can ask Native Americans for a second opinion. Same goes for the people of Southeast Asia, The Philippines, Latin America, The Middle and Far East. Not to mention Africa. Al Qaeda makes up a very small minority of the resistance.( According to the CIA and Department of Defense). Of course if you were to question there intelligence gathering abilities I would not blame you. The majority of Iraqis don't want the Occupation forces there. They have a right to resist an invading army that rapes people( men and women). Stacks them in naked pyramids and degrades them on there own land. Not to mention the massacre at Haditha as well as the ones that can't compete with Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith for the media's attention. American media I mean. Peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I guess one of the orcs called his friends about this story.
- wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Same goes for "pre-emptive warfare." It's called *invasion.*
Christ this country needs an enema. - Mageant, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5If the "surge" doesn't work, the Bush administration will suggest a "billow" next then a "breaker", then a "deluge", then an "efflux", flood, flow, growth, gush, intensification, outpouring, rise, roll, surf, swell, upsurge, wave.
That should last until January 2009. - Nico_, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9What a mess.
USA should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. Did any Americans actually believe that invading Iraq would have any other outcome than chaos and civil war? I have a hard time believing that anyone is so stupid that they actually believed in what the current administration told them.. Or is it that some people in the USA are so egoistic that they did not care if their military invaded another country again and caused mass casualties in the hundreds of thousands.
What happened to the WMDs or the Al Qaeda connection? What happened to the big banner that said Mission Accomplished? The USA has made total fools om themselves with this war. Just look at that embarrassing conference that the Bush administration held at the UN trying to convince other countries to join in on this war. Claiming that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, laboratories in trucks, it was a total insult to believe that other countries would not see right through these simple and stupid lies...
Anyway, now that the USA had its invasion and killed lots of people they suddenly figure out that this war thingy isn't going so well. So what do they decide to do? Pull out.... Think of the troops they say, we are loosing our kids, Americans are dying! Well what about all those people that have died because of your actions? What about all those people that are still there after you leave? What will they do when there is no one around to help finance and keep the country secure?
If you ask me the USA made its own bed and now its time to sleep in it. The USA should help finance Iraq security for decades to come. Since they are so big cowards that they mess up an entire country and when they feel "this isn't going our way" they just leave... And the Iraqi people are left to pick up the pieces. Great job.....
You would think people would learn after Vietnam, all the other shady regime changes and financing of wars. You failed over and over. Stop your invading, stop your torturing and stop sticking your noses in other peoples business.. - abitarecatania, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Actually, I just finished up as a Navy LT, nine years of active duty (Separated in July 06).
FYI - I have done two CENTCOM deployments (as a pilot, mission instructor and watch & exercise officer), a PACOM deployment (as a pilot), I have spent 11 months in Africa (joint tour with Army, AF, Marines and "others"), three years in EUCOM broken up by deployments.
You guys?
If you think good operational Commanders hide in staff quarters ie "Green zones", Tampa, Qatar or Bahrain, what can I say... it is ridiculous and part of the problem. People making the decisions are not impacted by them… ie the ridiculous “Rule of engagement” rules the US troops have to follow, having to account for all ammo, why are the troops not allowed to buy better body armor? NOMEX? Why not wear NOMEX in the field?
Because the people making the decisions rarely have their own skin on the roads in Baghdad!
I think you should pick up some books on General Patton, Col Hackworth, etc....
The situation awareness gained in "the field" is extremely important. You rarely get the full picture or complete truth unless you are there engaged in country with the units.
Again of the Col and LtCol killed, how many were aircraft related accidents? My guess is all of them were killed in Helos, possibly an occasional IED, VIED.
How many were killed fighting or working with the troops? Probably none.
How many were killed in "the field" to find out what is going on?
Here is a great lesson in Situation Awareness:
Senator McCain in Washington DC vs Michael Ware in Baghdad:
Senator McCain like the Generals and Cols outside of Baghdad are likely receiving the same emails, power points briefs, and Intel.
Who do you believe? I believe Michael Ware, he has been in Baghdad outside of the Green Zone, since the war started and was there when Senator McCain providing his assessment from DC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c6kzCR07PQ
- GonzoLiga, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Jesus. What a lack of understanding of the military some Diggers have, re: insubordination, resignations and Happy Hour at Fort Leavenworth's military prison.
Now, on an unrelated note:
@jm9206755: Calling Bush an idiot is "contemptuous speech" and is actionable under the UCMJ. And, yes, general officers can pretty much leave when they choose. That's for two reasons. First, they have all served over 20 years and are eligible for retirement. Second, commissioned officers are appointed, not serving under contract as enlisted personnel do. So they can "resign." Another point: general/flag officers retire. They do not resign. Regardless of what one may think of their intellect, they're not so stupid as to "resign" rather than "retire." A resignation would eliminate their retirement benefits.
@totorototoro: It's a surge. It's an augmentation in troop strength. The last US occupation occurred in Germany and Japan. There is a world of difference between a surge and an occupation. The occupation of Japan, for example, meant the US ran the country: laws, curfews, employment, reconstruction and administration of justice were all carried out by the US.
@Rhino2: "Computers may be twice as fast as they were in 1973, but your average voter is still as drunk and stupid as ever..." Best quote I've read all day.
@Dumbledorito: Have another tostada. Refusal to obey lawful orders is an actionable offense anytime, not just during war, however "war" is defined.
@m2313: There's a reason why you're DuggDown more than a new gold mine. Refusal to obey orders /= treason.
@Jammer: Probably prison time? How about, general/flag officers are so self-disciplined, educated and mature that they shut their mouths until they retire -- that's my "probably."
@roho76: "I'm moving to Antarctica." Don't go all Alec Baldwin on us at this stage in the game. I mean, don't say you're moving and then not move.
@abitarecatania: "Totally Ridiculus! The US generals and Col are as self serving as US politcans, the exceptions are extremely rare. Those who are suffering are the enlisted troops and they are the ones, who may revolt or start going "Mi Lai Massacre" on Iraqis and Afghanies. Where is CENTCOM head quaters? Tampa, Florida!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Ever heard of CENTCOM Forward? It's in -- I'm just guessing -- the Middle East. HQ CENTCOM deploys hundreds there. And what the hell is a "head quaters?" The image I conjure from that phrase is something out of a bad marijuana-stoked dream. Or is that Southern-speak? PS: Bonus points for your world-class understanding of "copy and paste," ref your "What in the world are you talking about?" post.
@dforty3: "The Democrats have proven not to take any action once they got the power to do so. These "investigations' are too little and too late. They are just buying time for the next "catalyzing" event." Are you talking about the 2008 elections??
@Nico: "The USA should help finance Iraq security for decades to come." She will. Look at the ongoing aftermath of WWII: The US still finances the security of Japan and Germany. "What happened to the big banner that said Mission Accomplished?" The banner was referring to the mission of the carrier battle group that was returning from the Middle East, not the war in Iraq. It's amazing what can be extrapolated from an image, or a speech, or a CV's mission, these days.
@akirksey: "Saddam was already fighting al Qaeda without any encouragement from the United States." Saddam was doing no such thing. He was not aiding them anymore than fighting them. Dugg you up for a thoughtful post. - knownskr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6akirksey,
It's understandable that people get emotional about these issues and in some sense it is a good thing. However, too many
people are allowing emotionalism to dominate all other considerations and are not rationally considering the real choices
that must be made.
In part you are correct that the long term struggle with al Qaeda will involve police action on the part of many nations.
The point you are missing is that we can not allow nation state support of al Qaeda that would allow them to train or
conduct operations. This is the mistake that we originally made with Afghanistan.
To the best of my knowledge Saddam was not fighting al Qaeda. He was at best turning a blind eye toward their operations
as long as they did not attack him and at worst was providing more active material support. (Reports on how much or
how little support he provided are inconclusive.)
From a purely legal prospective you are incorrect concerning the Iraq invasion. The short story is that to end Gulf War 1 (this
occurred after Iraq invaded Kuwait), Iraq (Saddam) agreed to terms of surrender. Implicit in any terms of surrender is the
threat that violation of the terms will lead to renewed conflict. There was dancing around and various amounts of
hand wringing, but no honest observer would contend that Saddam lived up to the original terms of surrender. We had
every right (some would say a moral obligation) to go back into Iraq as soon as he violated the terms. The fact that we
took years to do so can be ascribed to either patience or fecklessness, but it does not change the fact that the invasion was
legal and founded in international law. Again what really matters is that we are there now and al Qaeda refers to Iraq as
a central part of their war against the U.S.
What you may also not be aware of is a new movement in Anabar province called the Anabar Awakening. This is a new
political/military organization composed of most of the tribes in that province (approximately 18 out of 21 tribes). Many of
the tribes were originally in support of al Qaeda or at least indifferent to its operations. These tribes are now co-operating
with the coalition forces and the Iraq government in fighting al Qaeda. What makes this important is that these are Sunni
tribes working with Shia central government. The movement seems to be spreading and appears to have the seeds of a
national political movement that is not based on Sunni versus Shia, but instead on support for Iraq as a nation. In short
this appears to be just the type of political growth that we wanted to see.
Remember too that al Qaeda is targeting Iraqi civilians more than coalition forces. The two main reasons are that civilians
are easier targets and they get much greater news coverage. And if they can trigger a civil war between Sunni and Shias,
they hope to prosper in the resulting chaos.
As far as Iraq goes, we can either stay and finish the job now or go back and finish it later or all convert to Islam. We really
don't have any other choices. For you own information, if you are not already familiar with the term, you may want to research
the meaning of term Islamic Caliphate to understand the real stakes in Iraq. - Slitchy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Nice post gonzoliga, dugg you up for the effort and intelligent post. Dont get caught up spending too much time trying to correct digg users... Some are well thought out and just generally good no matter which side of the political spectrum they fall, but I find the vast majority are emotionally charged rampages that barely resemble what could be interpreted as a logical thought.
You could be here a long time if you try correcting everyone on this site... - dforty3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3To quote Rumsfeld (no doubt a hero of yours)...
"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/dod/rumsfeld-d20031016sdmemo.htm
So considering that there weren't very many terrorists in Iraq to begin with, what overall effect of "creaming them' do YOU think is having on the war on terror? Is there a part of you that thinks Bush is too much of a pussy to attack Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6your comment would be better with that high pitched uulation thingie at the end of it.
- Lockhart, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4A coup d'etat led by none other than the Greatest Living American, Stephen Colbert.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is