General Anthony Zinni - Page 2

bitonti · 05-25-2004, 02:05 PM

my biggest concern is that it doesn't even appear to me that the President realizes there's something wrong with his plan.

the plan is flawed but he's sticking to it come hell or highwater

when things aren't going well make a change don't just sit there

pride comes before a fall

the strategy needs DRASTIC retooling, that might mean more troops, more agressive missions, whatever it means then do it... i don't care if they start burning people soaked in pigs blood like General MacArthur did in the Phillipenes... pissing away AMERICAN lives while this same crappy plan gets rehashed should be unacceptable to members of BOTH parties.

chiefst2000 · 05-25-2004, 02:51 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by joewilly[/i]@May 25 2004, 12:28 PM
[b] chiefs, I respectably disagree.........I like the fact that Bush stated his intentions of maintaining troop presence & training the Iraqi people to fight insurgents & claims they have been for a while. Its great to say they are attempting to maintain little damage to the mosques etc.

I just think that Zinni,who referred to shwartzkoff & scowcrowft concurring, had a better plan than rummy & wolfy. more troops & overwhelm the whole place,seal borders & root out old guard quickly & prevent new insurgents from entering Iraq. Then train the iraqis. then worry about puttting a gov't in place.

It seems they are attempting to do all 3 at the same time & it has proven to be inneffective.

Like herm edwards, he seems incapable of changing the gameplan in the 3rd & 4th quarter. I just wish he would see the flaws in the plan that everyone else seems to see. [/b][/quote]
More troops could mean a much higher cost and a greater loss of life. Not to mention that the Democrats shrank the standing army throughout the 90's and left us with a much smaller force to call on. Zinni is a retired general. He is entitled to his opinions. The thing is its very easy to be a monday morning quarterback. In a war its absurd to think that everything will go perfectly as planned.

bitonti · 05-25-2004, 02:54 PM

it's not accurate to call Zinni a mon morn QB he was against the war before it happened...

chiefst2000 · 05-25-2004, 03:08 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:54 PM
[b] it's not accurate to call Zinni a mon morn QB he was against the war before it happened... [/b][/quote]
First you said he advocated 300,000 troops before it started. Now you say he was against the war before it started?? Which one was it?

Can you say for certain that the mission would have been more successfull if we had more troops? More troops could have translated into more casualties. It certainly would have translated to more costs.

joewilly · 05-25-2004, 03:34 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 25 2004, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 25 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:54 PM
[b] it's not accurate to call Zinni a mon morn QB he was against the war before it happened... [/b][/quote]
First you said he advocated 300,000 troops before it started. Now you say he was against the war before it started?? Which one was it?

Can you say for certain that the mission would have been more successfull if we had more troops? More troops could have translated into more casualties. It certainly would have translated to more costs. [/b][/quote]
It was zinni's job at the time to have a "what if" scenerio regarding Iraq in place in case it needed to be implemented. Part of His plan called for 300,000 troops on the ground. Thankfully it never needed to be implemented.

Bush chose to Implement a plan to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld overode his own commanders and scaled down the troops on the ground, saying basically a big army isn't needed anymore with our smart bombs.

Chiefs no one can say for certain things would be better if 300,000 troops in lieu of 115,000 would have worked out better.

Some very smart people in & around our armed forces overwhelming think more is better in this ugly situation we're in.

Rumsfelds' plan thusfar has not impressed me. Are you impressed so far? Has anyone in & around the armed forces spoke out to say he's doing a fine job?

chiefst2000 · 05-25-2004, 04:14 PM

I actually was impressed with the ease of the initial invasion. We were able to militarily take over the country with the largest standing army in the ME with relative ease. The part since then has not been as impressive.

bitonti · 05-25-2004, 04:21 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM
[b] I actually was impressed with the ease of the initial invasion. We were able to militarily take over the country with the largest standing army in the ME with relative ease. The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote]
we didn't defeat anyone ... they just took off with their weapons to fight another day... guerrilla style...

the last thing we wanted was urban conflict... now we are involved in it and no one from the right can manage a criticism?

at a certain point partisan politics has to make way for common sense.

you can argue it 100 different ways: Morally, Logically, Environmentally, Economically...

the war isn't going well and Bush doesn't seem to want to change the plan?

firing their 2nd Theater Commander isn't gonna solve anything... they need to fire Rumsfeld and Cheney then i could justify voting for Bush - that's how far things have not gone to plan.

Results are all I want. IF the war is over then why are guys still dying? If it isn't over, ok so how are we gonna fight this? no real response last night...

joewilly · 05-25-2004, 04:55 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM
[b] I actually was impressed with the ease of the initial invasion. We were able to militarily take over the country with the largest standing army in the ME with relative ease. The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote]
at the risk of sounding like zinni should be the new world leader in the eyes of joewilly, zinni addressed that point chiefs & agrees with you. Our military might is brilliant & the tactical execution by the soldiers was as well. He said the strategic thinking sucked as well as the overall operational planning. In so many words he said rummy & wolfy should be held accountable & their heads should roll as they let our president down.

bit, I agree with you but am not sure militarily we could have done anything different from the outset if the republican guard chose to run & hide.

In hindsight it sure appears our strategists did a lousy job in the "what if" scenerios, & the 3 critical warhawks at the top did our country a great injustice.

Its sad that our commander in chief refuses to recognise this & will stay the course

isired · 05-25-2004, 11:43 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM
[b] The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote]
i nominate for "understatement of the century"

chiefst2000 · 05-26-2004, 10:12 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by isired+May 25 2004, 11:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (isired @ May 25 2004, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM
[b] The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote]
i nominate for "understatement of the century" [/b][/quote]
You are all missing the point here. In war it is impossible to plan for every possible situation. In the case of Iraq there have been alot of mistakes. Mistakes that have cost us lives. I don't think they prepared well for the possibility that foreign fighters including many Al Quaida trained terrorists would flock into Iraq and attempt to mount a resistance. They should have done a better job of securing the borders.

The flip side of this is that those terrorists are engaged in Iraq rather than coming here to do harm. Those terrorists will eventually be elliminated. Our military continues to do an amazing job over there. In military confrontations we have been incredibly successfull. Al Sadr's militia seems to have been put down. The rest of the Shiite's did not join them. Iraq is still on track for elections in January. We have to look at the good with the bad.

05-25-2004, 02:05 PM	#21
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	my biggest concern is that it doesn't even appear to me that the President realizes there's something wrong with his plan. the plan is flawed but he's sticking to it come hell or highwater when things aren't going well make a change don't just sit there pride comes before a fall the strategy needs DRASTIC retooling, that might mean more troops, more agressive missions, whatever it means then do it... i don't care if they start burning people soaked in pigs blood like General MacArthur did in the Phillipenes... pissing away AMERICAN lives while this same crappy plan gets rehashed should be unacceptable to members of BOTH parties.

05-25-2004, 02:51 PM	#22
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	[quote][i]Originally posted by joewilly[/i]@May 25 2004, 12:28 PM [b] chiefs, I respectably disagree.........I like the fact that Bush stated his intentions of maintaining troop presence & training the Iraqi people to fight insurgents & claims they have been for a while. Its great to say they are attempting to maintain little damage to the mosques etc. I just think that Zinni,who referred to shwartzkoff & scowcrowft concurring, had a better plan than rummy & wolfy. more troops & overwhelm the whole place,seal borders & root out old guard quickly & prevent new insurgents from entering Iraq. Then train the iraqis. then worry about puttting a gov't in place. It seems they are attempting to do all 3 at the same time & it has proven to be inneffective. Like herm edwards, he seems incapable of changing the gameplan in the 3rd & 4th quarter. I just wish he would see the flaws in the plan that everyone else seems to see. [/b][/quote] More troops could mean a much higher cost and a greater loss of life. Not to mention that the Democrats shrank the standing army throughout the 90's and left us with a much smaller force to call on. Zinni is a retired general. He is entitled to his opinions. The thing is its very easy to be a monday morning quarterback. In a war its absurd to think that everything will go perfectly as planned.

05-25-2004, 02:54 PM	#23
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	it's not accurate to call Zinni a mon morn QB he was against the war before it happened...

05-25-2004, 03:08 PM	#24
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:54 PM [b] it's not accurate to call Zinni a mon morn QB he was against the war before it happened... [/b][/quote] First you said he advocated 300,000 troops before it started. Now you say he was against the war before it started?? Which one was it? Can you say for certain that the mission would have been more successfull if we had more troops? More troops could have translated into more casualties. It certainly would have translated to more costs.

05-25-2004, 03:34 PM	#25
joewilly All Pro Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,112	[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000+May 25 2004, 03:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (chiefst2000 @ May 25 2004, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@May 25 2004, 02:54 PM [b] it's not accurate to call Zinni a mon morn QB he was against the war before it happened... [/b][/quote] First you said he advocated 300,000 troops before it started. Now you say he was against the war before it started?? Which one was it? Can you say for certain that the mission would have been more successfull if we had more troops? More troops could have translated into more casualties. It certainly would have translated to more costs. [/b][/quote] It was zinni's job at the time to have a "what if" scenerio regarding Iraq in place in case it needed to be implemented. Part of His plan called for 300,000 troops on the ground. Thankfully it never needed to be implemented. Bush chose to Implement a plan to invade Iraq. Rumsfeld overode his own commanders and scaled down the troops on the ground, saying basically a big army isn't needed anymore with our smart bombs. Chiefs no one can say for certain things would be better if 300,000 troops in lieu of 115,000 would have worked out better. Some very smart people in & around our armed forces overwhelming think more is better in this ugly situation we're in. Rumsfelds' plan thusfar has not impressed me. Are you impressed so far? Has anyone in & around the armed forces spoke out to say he's doing a fine job?

05-25-2004, 04:14 PM	#26
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	I actually was impressed with the ease of the initial invasion. We were able to militarily take over the country with the largest standing army in the ME with relative ease. The part since then has not been as impressive.

05-25-2004, 04:21 PM	#27
bitonti searching Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philly Posts: 38,786	[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM [b] I actually was impressed with the ease of the initial invasion. We were able to militarily take over the country with the largest standing army in the ME with relative ease. The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote] we didn't defeat anyone ... they just took off with their weapons to fight another day... guerrilla style... the last thing we wanted was urban conflict... now we are involved in it and no one from the right can manage a criticism? at a certain point partisan politics has to make way for common sense. you can argue it 100 different ways: Morally, Logically, Environmentally, Economically... the war isn't going well and Bush doesn't seem to want to change the plan? firing their 2nd Theater Commander isn't gonna solve anything... they need to fire Rumsfeld and Cheney then i could justify voting for Bush - that's how far things have not gone to plan. Results are all I want. IF the war is over then why are guys still dying? If it isn't over, ok so how are we gonna fight this? no real response last night...

05-25-2004, 04:55 PM	#28
joewilly All Pro Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 1,112	[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM [b] I actually was impressed with the ease of the initial invasion. We were able to militarily take over the country with the largest standing army in the ME with relative ease. The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote] at the risk of sounding like zinni should be the new world leader in the eyes of joewilly, zinni addressed that point chiefs & agrees with you. Our military might is brilliant & the tactical execution by the soldiers was as well. He said the strategic thinking sucked as well as the overall operational planning. In so many words he said rummy & wolfy should be held accountable & their heads should roll as they let our president down. bit, I agree with you but am not sure militarily we could have done anything different from the outset if the republican guard chose to run & hide. In hindsight it sure appears our strategists did a lousy job in the "what if" scenerios, & the 3 critical warhawks at the top did our country a great injustice. Its sad that our commander in chief refuses to recognise this & will stay the course

05-25-2004, 11:43 PM	#29
isired Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: nyc Posts: 11,155	[quote][i]Originally posted by chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM [b] The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote] i nominate for "understatement of the century"

05-26-2004, 10:12 AM	#30
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	[quote][i]Originally posted by isired+May 25 2004, 11:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (isired @ May 25 2004, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--chiefst2000[/i]@May 25 2004, 04:14 PM [b] The part since then has not been as impressive. [/b][/quote] i nominate for "understatement of the century" [/b][/quote] You are all missing the point here. In war it is impossible to plan for every possible situation. In the case of Iraq there have been alot of mistakes. Mistakes that have cost us lives. I don't think they prepared well for the possibility that foreign fighters including many Al Quaida trained terrorists would flock into Iraq and attempt to mount a resistance. They should have done a better job of securing the borders. The flip side of this is that those terrorists are engaged in Iraq rather than coming here to do harm. Those terrorists will eventually be elliminated. Our military continues to do an amazing job over there. In military confrontations we have been incredibly successfull. Al Sadr's militia seems to have been put down. The rest of the Shiite's did not join them. Iraq is still on track for elections in January. We have to look at the good with the bad.