[quote]JeffR wrote:
Just in case there are any other yellow-bellies who feel like besmirching an American Hero, try this one on for size:[/quote]
So he’s a competent general. No one said otherwise. I was asking what he did to deserve the “hero” label. There is no mention of heroism or heroics anywhere on your linked page. Is doing one’s job competently all that’s required to be a hero nowadays? Has the standard been redefined to incompetence, so that anyone simply doing what he’s paid to do is automatically “heroic?”
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The man has the numbers to show we’re winning…
For the last time, Iraq isn’t a trophy you “win” or “lose”. It’s a country with people in it, 60% of which - according to the latest polls - view attacks on Americans legitimate. Heck, for all my pacifism, if I see a foreign soldier down my street in a tank belonging to the army that’s been bombing my neighbors for the last 4 years, you can bet your ass that I’ll try to hurt him/her. You will do the same in a similar situation.
I said it many times and will say it again: As long as there’s one Iraqi standing, bullets will be fired at American troops in Iraq. I really don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that.[/quote]
You’ve never lived in a tyranny. You are confusing liberators with oppressors.
Yes, the whacko do attack our troops, who are there to help them establish a liberal democracy. You fail to grasp that THAT is why they attack us. “Those in the West value life; we value death.” — Zawahiri (or however you spell Osama’s shitbag #2 man).
Maybe this is why I I’ve said many times: ‘Burn the nest.’ Maybe Muslims are too nuts to WANT to live in a liberal democracy.
That you’ve managed to make a few areas more secure is pointless, if the final outcome does not produce a working, strong central government for Canada.[/quote]
There’s a whole list in the book “Fiasco”. I could probably call on a good number of those. How about Westmoreland for size?
“David”'s world is much the same as Mao Zedong’s in his insurgent days. Did you get the concept that “David” is trying to convince you with disinformation if needed? This is why he is “Young Mao”, the insurgent. In America. Targeting the intellectually challenged like Headhunter.[/quote]
If he went before Congress and told stories about how we rip the arms off of babies, burn down villages, rape and pillage like a Mongol horde, would he get your vote for President?
From jeff’s link:
“Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings. In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America�??s 25 Best Leaders.”
Yeah, its all a scam, the Bronze Star is given to everyone.
Moron.
There’s a whole list in the book “Fiasco”. I could probably call on a good number of those. How about Westmoreland for size?
“David”'s world is much the same as Mao Zedong’s in his insurgent days. Did you get the concept that “David” is trying to convince you with disinformation if needed? This is why he is “Young Mao”, the insurgent. In America. Targeting the intellectually challenged like Headhunter.
If he went before Congress and told stories about how we rip the arms off of babies, burn down villages, rape and pillage like a Mongol horde, would he get your vote for President?
Yeah, its all a scam, the Bronze Star is given to everyone.
Moron.
[/quote]
For your first paragraph, he’d get a bullet.
I don’t doubt that “David” has some courage. It takes some, after all, to attempt to deceive Americans.
from Brad61’s thread, Violence is Down in Iraq?:
"Only because they’re lying, or manipulating the statistics.
Example: Car bombs are now classified as traffic accidents.
Example: If a body is found shot through the back of the head, it’s classified as ‘sectarian violence’. But if the bullet came in from the front, now it’s only considered “crime” and won’t make it into the military reports.
Those who lied about WMD, who lied about Saddam’s connection to Al Qaeda, who lied about the urgent need to invade Iraq, who lied about being greeted with flowers, who lied about how long it would take and how much it would cost… well, there’s no reason to think these people have started telling the truth."
“David” is all about sensitivity with how events are portrayed to the media. He wears his poker face projecting to the world that his fellow Americans are not clever enough, insightful enough to see through his organization charade. His deathbots will continue to die, however, even though the poker face is maxed-out. You will ignore that too as a cheerleading zombie.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You’ve never lived in a tyranny. [/quote]
You must be freakin’ kidding me!
Do you have any idea who Hassan the 2nd is?
You are assuming that the people attacking you are Al-Qaeda. Those guys represent only a small fraction of the “insurgency”.
Most people shooting at your compatriots are regular folks pissed at you for bombing them and invading their land. For all we know, your bombs killed their kids, parents and everyone they loved.
Yeah, Al-Qaeda’s gotta go. Nobody’s arguing otherwise, but your very presence there is fostering their movement. In other words, for every one you kill, you create two more. Go home and the locals will immediately realize that Al-Qaeda fighters are superfluous and kick them out.
That you’ve managed to make a few areas more secure is pointless, if the final outcome does not produce a working, strong central government for Canada.
Fixed it for you, Pooks.
[/quote]
If it was at least funny, or even mildly amusing…
As usual, you’re unable to address a real argument. Sigh. I’ll let you get back to catapulting the propaganda.
Most people shooting at your compatriots are regular folks pissed at you for bombing them and invading their land. For all we know, your bombs killed their kids, parents and everyone they loved.
Yeah, Al-Qaeda’s gotta go. Nobody’s arguing otherwise, but your very presence there is fostering their movement. In other words, for every one you kill, you create two more. Go home and the locals will immediately realize that Al-Qaeda fighters are superfluous and kick them out.[/quote]
Ludicrous. It wasn’t THEIR land; it belonged to Saddam and his minions, to abuse as they saw fit. You make it sound like some sort of peaceful nirvana.
How do you know that leaving wouldn’t create 3 more or 10 more? You are just like the dumb libs around the world who blame their PROTECTOR for their problems: “Hmmmm…evil people attack American soldiers. If the soldiers leave, peace will be established!” Do you realize how stupid this argument is? That’s like saying a thug will leave you alone if the cop fighting with him goes away.
Your reasoning is just beyond fucking stupidity. You ARE a cyber-jihadist like the other guys have been saying.
That you’ve managed to make a few areas more secure is pointless, if the final outcome does not produce a working, strong central government for Canada.
Fixed it for you, Pooks.
If it was at least funny, or even mildly amusing…
As usual, you’re unable to address a real argument. Sigh. I’ll let you get back to catapulting the propaganda.
[/quote]
As usual? The problem is that you are basically immune to anyone else’s reasoning. I’ve admitted errors in logic before but I don’t recall you ever doing so.
In a discussion with you, should I simply admit that Pookie is always right? Yeah, I’ll get back to you on that…
There’s a whole list in the book “Fiasco”. I could probably call on a good number of those. How about Westmoreland for size?
“David”'s world is much the same as Mao Zedong’s in his insurgent days. Did you get the concept that “David” is trying to convince you with disinformation if needed? This is why he is “Young Mao”, the insurgent. In America. Targeting the intellectually challenged like Headhunter.
Yeah, its all a scam, the Bronze Star is given to everyone.
Moron.
[/quote]
"Gen Petraeus had no experience of combat before Iraq. He was too young for the Vietnam war, and his earlier deployments were in peacekeeping: with the United Nations in Haiti in 1995, with US forces in Kuwait in 1999, and with the Nato stabilisation force for Bosnia in 2001.
Following the invasion, Gen Petraeus was in charge of the post-war occupation in Mosul. On his second tour of Iraq, from June 2004 to September 2005, he was in charge of training the Iraqi forces.
Both missions were seen as success stories - in part due to Gen Petraeus’s relentless self-promotion. In September 2004, on the eve of presidential elections in the US, he wrote a piece in the Washington Post extolling the progress in Iraq. “There are reasons for optimism,” he wrote. “Iraqi security forces are in the fight.”
But the picture in Mosul, as in the training of the Iraqi army, was muddier. Four months after Gen Petraeus left Mosul the police chief he trained defected, and the city is now a stronghold of the insurgency. As for Iraqi security forces, only six battalions are now operating independently.
Gen Petraeus’s ability to leave that past behind is a source of disquiet to some of his former colleagues in Iraq. “He is the Teflon general,” said a former US diplomat who served in Iraq. “He hasn’t been held to account for the fact that all the guys he was supposedly training in 2004 are nowhere to be seen and Mosul basically collapsed after he left.”
"But Gen Petraeus is no Westmoreland. “Petraeus would be pretty stupid if he tied his star to President Bush, and Petraeus is not stupid.”
“… he holds a PhD from Princeton University. His dissertation was on the US military and the lessons of the Vietnam war.”
“In 1991, he was accidentally shot in the chest when a soldier tripped over his rifle in a live-fire exercise. In 2000, he had another brush with death when his parachute collapsed 18 metres (60ft) from the ground during a civilian skydiving jump.”
“The son of a Dutch sea captain who immigrated to the US after the second world war, Gen Petraeus was raised in New York state, not far from the US military academy at West Point. Gen Petraeus also had a powerful patron during his ascent through the ranks: General Jack Keane, one of the promoters of the administration’s “surge” strategy.”
There’s a whole list in the book “Fiasco”. I could probably call on a good number of those. How about Westmoreland for size?
“David”'s world is much the same as Mao Zedong’s in his insurgent days. Did you get the concept that “David” is trying to convince you with disinformation if needed? This is why he is “Young Mao”, the insurgent. In America. Targeting the intellectually challenged like Headhunter.
Yeah, its all a scam, the Bronze Star is given to everyone.
Moron.
"Gen Petraeus had no experience of combat before Iraq. He was too young for the Vietnam war, and his earlier deployments were in peacekeeping: with the United Nations in Haiti in 1995, with US forces in Kuwait in 1999, and with the Nato stabilisation force for Bosnia in 2001.
Following the invasion, Gen Petraeus was in charge of the post-war occupation in Mosul. On his second tour of Iraq, from June 2004 to September 2005, he was in charge of training the Iraqi forces.
Both missions were seen as success stories - in part due to Gen Petraeus’s relentless self-promotion. In September 2004, on the eve of presidential elections in the US, he wrote a piece in the Washington Post extolling the progress in Iraq. “There are reasons for optimism,” he wrote. “Iraqi security forces are in the fight.”
But the picture in Mosul, as in the training of the Iraqi army, was muddier. Four months after Gen Petraeus left Mosul the police chief he trained defected, and the city is now a stronghold of the insurgency. As for Iraqi security forces, only six battalions are now operating independently.
Gen Petraeus’s ability to leave that past behind is a source of disquiet to some of his former colleagues in Iraq. “He is the Teflon general,” said a former US diplomat who served in Iraq. “He hasn’t been held to account for the fact that all the guys he was supposedly training in 2004 are nowhere to be seen and Mosul basically collapsed after he left.”
"But Gen Petraeus is no Westmoreland. “Petraeus would be pretty stupid if he tied his star to President Bush, and Petraeus is not stupid.”
“… he holds a PhD from Princeton University. His dissertation was on the US military and the lessons of the Vietnam war.”
“In 1991, he was accidentally shot in the chest when a soldier tripped over his rifle in a live-fire exercise. In 2000, he had another brush with death when his parachute collapsed 18 metres (60ft) from the ground during a civilian skydiving jump.”
“The son of a Dutch sea captain who immigrated to the US after the second world war, Gen Petraeus was raised in New York state, not far from the US military academy at West Point. Gen Petraeus also had a powerful patron during his ascent through the ranks: General Jack Keane, one of the promoters of the administration’s “surge” strategy.”
War hero?
[/quote]
Anyone who becomes a General has patrons. There’s politics at that level; so what?
How’d he get his Bronze Star?
If he’s just another clown, why don’t numerous other guys at that level have all of his credentials?
I can certainly see why you Lefties want to run the guy down but the least you could do is give the guy credit for his accomplishments. Jeeezzzzzz…
There’s a whole list in the book “Fiasco”. I could probably call on a good number of those. How about Westmoreland for size?
“David”'s world is much the same as Mao Zedong’s in his insurgent days. Did you get the concept that “David” is trying to convince you with disinformation if needed? This is why he is “Young Mao”, the insurgent. In America. Targeting the intellectually challenged like Headhunter.
Yeah, its all a scam, the Bronze Star is given to everyone.
Moron.
"Gen Petraeus had no experience of combat before Iraq. He was too young for the Vietnam war, and his earlier deployments were in peacekeeping: with the United Nations in Haiti in 1995, with US forces in Kuwait in 1999, and with the Nato stabilisation force for Bosnia in 2001.
Following the invasion, Gen Petraeus was in charge of the post-war occupation in Mosul. On his second tour of Iraq, from June 2004 to September 2005, he was in charge of training the Iraqi forces.
Both missions were seen as success stories - in part due to Gen Petraeus’s relentless self-promotion. In September 2004, on the eve of presidential elections in the US, he wrote a piece in the Washington Post extolling the progress in Iraq. “There are reasons for optimism,” he wrote. “Iraqi security forces are in the fight.”
But the picture in Mosul, as in the training of the Iraqi army, was muddier. Four months after Gen Petraeus left Mosul the police chief he trained defected, and the city is now a stronghold of the insurgency. As for Iraqi security forces, only six battalions are now operating independently.
Gen Petraeus’s ability to leave that past behind is a source of disquiet to some of his former colleagues in Iraq. “He is the Teflon general,” said a former US diplomat who served in Iraq. “He hasn’t been held to account for the fact that all the guys he was supposedly training in 2004 are nowhere to be seen and Mosul basically collapsed after he left.”
"But Gen Petraeus is no Westmoreland. “Petraeus would be pretty stupid if he tied his star to President Bush, and Petraeus is not stupid.”
“… he holds a PhD from Princeton University. His dissertation was on the US military and the lessons of the Vietnam war.”
“In 1991, he was accidentally shot in the chest when a soldier tripped over his rifle in a live-fire exercise. In 2000, he had another brush with death when his parachute collapsed 18 metres (60ft) from the ground during a civilian skydiving jump.”
“The son of a Dutch sea captain who immigrated to the US after the second world war, Gen Petraeus was raised in New York state, not far from the US military academy at West Point. Gen Petraeus also had a powerful patron during his ascent through the ranks: General Jack Keane, one of the promoters of the administration’s “surge” strategy.”
War hero?
Anyone who becomes a General has patrons. There’s politics at that level; so what?
How’d he get his Bronze Star?
If he’s just another clown, why don’t numerous other guys at that level have all of his credentials?
I can certainly see why you Lefties want to run the guy down but the least you could do is give the guy credit for his accomplishments. Jeeezzzzzz…
[/quote]
HH,
This gives you an idea of the lengths that the malignant pus-pimples (bradley/limbic/pookie) will go. No honor, no erudition, no accomplishments of their own.
In short, they aren’t fit to comment on this General.
Just to make sure everyone understands, this man has trigger time.
I choose that particular link because it’s easily read (the only kind the pus-pimples would read).
Here is another favorite site of pus-pimpledom. It’s longer (hopefully, they can concentrate long enough).
You’ll see that he was leading his division when he was ambushed by paramilitary groups.
This man is A HERO. Anyone who says otherwise, brings shame to themselves.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As usual? The problem is that you are basically immune to anyone else’s reasoning. I’ve admitted errors in logic before but I don’t recall you ever doing so.[/quote]
What? I was asking you what you thought the winning conditions were. The Iraqi government is falling apart. I’m curious as to how you can expect to “win” without the political side of the equation holding up. You’re dream of genocide is just not going to happen, so it has to work otherwise.
It would save some time, but if you could point out where I’m wrong, that would be good too. I guess you’ll prefer to do like Jeffro and throw various boring insults while running away when you realize you don’t even know why you think like you do and have no idea on how to reconcile your views with the harsh reality of what’s going on over there.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
You’ll see that he was leading his division when he was ambushed by paramilitary groups.[/quote]
Wasn’t that what he was supposed to do? Leading his division? Or is he heroic because he managed to be ambushed?
Well then, you should edit that wikipedia entry and correct the oversight, as the word “hero” or any of it’s derivative forms is no where to be found at that URL.
I’m not questioning the man’s competency as an officer or general. I’m just wondering how he suddenly becomes “a hero.” According to you, I guess there are 160,000 heroes serving in Iraq. That sounds very nice, but it dilutes the term for those who accomplish truly heroic deeds.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
You’ll see that he was leading his division when he was ambushed by paramilitary groups.
Wasn’t that what he was supposed to do? Leading his division? Or is he heroic because he managed to be ambushed?
This man is A HERO. Anyone who says otherwise, brings shame to themselves.
Well then, you should edit that wikipedia entry and correct the oversight, as the word “hero” or any of it’s derivative forms is no where to be found at that URL.
I’m not questioning the man’s competency as an officer or general. I’m just wondering how he suddenly becomes “a hero.” According to you, I guess there are 160,000 heroes serving in Iraq. That sounds very nice, but it dilutes the term for those who accomplish truly heroic deeds.
[/quote]
There are 160,000 heroes in Iraq.
I agree 100%.
He led his division and carried them through under fire.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
There are 160,000 heroes in Iraq.
So Petraeus is not really a standout, then. He’s just one of 160,000 others just like him.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I agree 100%.
Of course you do.
[/quote]
Are any of the Canadians in Afghanistan heroes? Nah, they’re each just part of a stupid crowd that believes in fighting for their beliefs, right, Pookie?
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
You’ll see that he was leading his division when he was ambushed by paramilitary groups.
Wasn’t that what he was supposed to do? Leading his division? Or is he heroic because he managed to be ambushed?
This man is A HERO. Anyone who says otherwise, brings shame to themselves.
Well then, you should edit that wikipedia entry and correct the oversight, as the word “hero” or any of it’s derivative forms is no where to be found at that URL.
I’m not questioning the man’s competency as an officer or general. I’m just wondering how he suddenly becomes “a hero.” According to you, I guess there are 160,000 heroes serving in Iraq. That sounds very nice, but it dilutes the term for those who accomplish truly heroic deeds.
[/quote]
Now, now, mustn’t disturb Jeffie when he’s inflating his inflatables.