1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Stormin Norman nervous

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Robert Harris, Jan 28, 2003.

  1. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    Seems it is not only wimps, Hollywood airheads, Democrats and useless Europeans who wonder if we (e.g., the Prez) really know enough to proceed with war.

    Ex-Gulf War Gen. Schwarzkopf Cautious on Iraq War
    Tue Jan 28,10:28 AM ET

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. commander Norman Schwarzkopf says he needs more information before he can support a preemptive invasion of Iraq, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

    "The thought of (Iraqi President) with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, OK?" the retired general was quoted as saying.

    "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information."

    Schwarzkopf said U.N. weapons inspectors, who reported on Monday that Iraq failed to show it has eliminated illegal weapons, should be allowed to drive any timetable leading to war.

    "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive," he said
    "The thought of (Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, OK?" the retired general was quoted as saying.

    More: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030128/ts_nm/iraq_usa_schwarzkopf_dc_2

  2. Twingo

    Twingo Registered User

    Basically he's out of the loop and has been for a long time so he has very little knowledge more than we do really. Thats pretty much what he said. I haven't seen any government officials with full knowledge (and without bias) of the situation stand up and sound tentative.
  3. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Exactly right, but I don't necessarily reject Schwarzkopf's viewpoint out of hand. I think he's right, but he might be less right than the others who are, for lack of a better term, "pro-war."

  4. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    He may or may not be full of crap, but if he feels he hasn't been told enough to know whether we should start a war or not and expresses that view publicly, it is not ssurprising that a lot of other folks think the same t6hing.
  5. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Who said he's full of crap? The truth of the matter is, he's very likely reliving 1991 again, without virtue of being in the service and having access to the information.

    I think people should listen to Schwarzkopf, but not accept his word as gospel.

  6. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    At least his excuse can be he is out of the loop.

    What about our own members of Congress and some allies who are privy to some top secret info on Iraq and WMD and still parade all over the tube how Bush has not shown any hardcore evidence of said weapons, moments after they have been briefed.

    Talk about party politics...

    When the evidence is shown next week, I hope those weasels are seen for what they are...parasites!
  7. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I think the evidence that will be shown will be of the sort that can be reinterpreted to favor any position under the sun. It's unlikely that a bunch of Iraqi double-agents will be ponied out and tell their stories:

    "Yes, I worked in this mobile lab, and I sat right here and worked on the granulation process for weaponizing anthrax..."

    "I was in Saddam's cabinet when they discussed moving the weapon stockpiles to the south, where it was hidden in a cellar at 123 ElHakeen Road..."

    You know how it is.

  8. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    I wonder too , so do millions of Americans, many of our generals, past and present, and defense ,foreign policy, and intelligence experts from prior administrations. I have grave doubts about the competence , wisdom, and integrity of this President and his administration. So does Helen Thomas, who has known every president since JFK. According to Thomas-"He is the worst president ever. He is the worst president in all of American history." I concur. The protests are not just anti-war, they are a vote of no confidence for Bush.


    Iraq can wait, North Korea and Pakistan are far greater risks, Afghanistan isn't stabilized, and we have un-finished business with Al-Queda. Iraq, has us stretched thin, Three days after Rumsfield said we won't need a draft, our "all volunteer" military suspended discharges and retirements for a year
    Derisive remarks about any and all opposed to this war hurt your credibility Robert. That's the same divisive MO the administration uses that alienates our allies and divides America. This country belongs to all of us, not just those gung -ho for this war. Whether Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative,or whatever, we are all Americans.

    The military makes mistakes too, big ones. Ike warned about about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, but America seems to have forgotten. There are those with a vested interest in war. That was a factor in Vietnam, and its a factor today. The revolving door between government and industry creates perverse incentives and conflicts of interest. A prime example is the Carlyle group, through which Bush Sr. can profit from the policies of Bush Jr. Most of those gung-ho for war have never fought in one. The case for war is yet to be made, after a year of saber rattling and multiple rationales. The problem isn't the protestors Robert, its the President.


    Edited 2/1/03 to remove erroneous references(2) to Steve Moore.
  9. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I think before you personalize things here you should take a second and reread my posts in this thread. At no point in time did I make "derisive remarks about any and all opposed to this war." I merely pointed out that GEN Schwarzkopf, Ret., no longer has the necessary access to the military that he once had, and by his own admission, is not privy to everything going on in the military circles, not to mention political.

    You can read proper English, right?

  10. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    When you evaluate anybody's advice or position you must always consider where they are coming from. You must evaluate the accuracy or outcome of past information and advice. This certainly applies to the Military Industrial Complex. Many in the MIC certainly give all their advice with an eye on their pocketbook. But many people's problem is they want to make the MIC so all encompassing that they include everybody currently wearing a uniform or who ever wore a uniform. My experience has been that the members of the military are seldom the first to want to use military power. Those in the military that are the exceptions are usually eliminated before they reach posts that have them advising presidents. We can agree on that much.

    The military serves the people of the United States through their elected leader. The people of the United States want more evidence before the war begins and it is even now scheduled.

    The office of POTUS cannot be placed in a vacuum. Every action of every president can be evaluated and if you want you can show that a particular piece of policy benefited him, his relatives, his relatives friends, his friends, or friends of friends. So we elect a president and then we see what he does. And if we catch him then we take action. Mr. Bush is damned by circumstantial evidence and by friends. No president in history has not listened to people he knows and has usually appointed them to the cabinet. This is not reason for impeachment. What we have always had in this country are those that once a given person is elected they don't give him a chance. They assume that the worst possible reason for every decision is the only reason the policy was advocated or the position reached. So when you are considering the to support a policy or position you eliminate those that believe every decision is wrong and you eliminate those who believe every position is right and you listen to those that argue each decision based on facts, not who knows who or whose thirteenth cousin once intermarried. The problem with people who oppose a leader so vehemently that they shout worst ever and impeach at every turn is they are the last you listen to. Rather than present a reasoned opposition to a particular piece of a policy they scream so loudly at every discussion that everybody turns the hearing aid off in that ear. Until we require elected leaders and all their friends and relations to divest themselves of any means of personal investment then there will be those who scream greed rather than national interests is what drives the politician. The naysayers may even be accurate in a given situation.

    But in this case my personal opinion is that they are not. Every American that supports the president does not have his money invested in the Carlyle Group. We have watched with abject disbelief as the UN and our previous president ignored the actions of Iraq. We don't believe for a minute that somebody with such deep seated reasons to hate America as Saddam has not found ways to sponsor terrorism against us. We don't believe for a minute that he will just stop because we ask him to. We only have to look at his record. We don't admire Pakistan or North Korea but with forces in place and well on the road to fix Iraq it is utter folly and misdirection to advocate they be moved to the other side of the globe.

    The revolving door between the MIC and government is shameful and needs to be fixed as does our system of campaign contributions. However, Mr. Pupowski, the current president did not create it and we cannot allow all foreign policy to just stop while you decide which decisions are made in MIC land and which are to the benefit of the country. We will make those decisions at the polls and we will make those decisions in accordance with the law of the country, not by how many left or right wing websites we can list.
  11. pupowski

    pupowski Banned

    Maybe not Steve. My apologies for the typo . Guilty as charged. That should have said Robert, since that's whose post I responded to. I have made the correction and resolved to be more careful in the future.
  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Nice to see the above. People do not realize how much respect one gains by admitting errors and apologizing for them.

    Thanks Pup. I don't always agree with you but that was a special gesture.

Share This Page