04 November 2006


Acording to CNN,
Rumsfeld should be replaced because,
"He's lost the support and respect of the military"

Guess what that really doesn't matter.
There are quite a few people in leadership positions here at the Academy that most everyone I've talked too don't "support and respect".
The military is not a democracy.
That's reserved for public governing bodies.
I don't get any say in who my commander is.
And it doesn't matter if I "support and respect" them as a person.
But I must support and respect his rank.

Even if the are generals who don't like him,
Be deal.
Get over it.
It's not your job to like him.
If you don't like your boss,
Then resign, retire, whatever,
And then you can complain all you want.

“An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If
you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage - resign your
position, and when you are outside damn to your heart’s content;
but as long as you are part of the institution, do not condemn it.
If you do that you are loosening the tendrils that are holding you
to the institution, and at the first high wind that comes along,
you will be uprooted and blown away, and you probably never
know the reason why.” -Elbert Hubbard


mg said...

the generals don't like him because there is NO STRATEGY in Iraq that is working, has worked, or will work in the future. The leadership has lost faith in the leader. Bush always says he'll listen to his generals on the ground.... So don't you think these generals who are a little sick of seeing men needlessly die have an opinion that matters?

why do you have such blind faith in Rumsfeld?

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

You make way too many assumptions.
I never said I supported him,
Much less have blind faith in him.
I'll say it know,
I DO support him.
There is a reason he was selected for three different terms for the same job.

THis post ins't really about me or anyone else supporting him.
It's more about whether or not these generals opinioons in this issue matter.

mg said...

exactly. and you think that the generals opinions don't.

he was selected for 3 terms because he is aligned with Cheney and Bush so closely, he'll act in their interest rather than the best interest of the troops on the ground. he's shown it time and time again.

and we all know bush has a little problem selecting competent people for the job.

you DO support him, do you? why? what has he done to show that he has any clue what direction our military shoudl be taking in Iraq or Afghanistan.

adn don't you agree these generals have a little more experience than you, young cadet?

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

You're obviously not in the military.
Those generals do not have the right to publicly critize him.
No matter what the situation.

I'm not going t odebatet the finer points as to wheher he's right or wrong.
My point here was merely that those generals aren't in a position to publicly disagree with the SecDef.

MG said...

when they are losing men on the ground due to incompetence, they have a DUTY to complain about him. you should learn that.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

Not publically they don't.
Go read the UCMJ.

mg said...

haha - i'm very familiar with the UCMJ. And I know what it says. but no one believes that incompetence should be tolerated if lives are being lost. and that is what the leaders on the ground have so stated.

Also, have you read the testimony of John Batiste - who led the 1st Infantry Division in 2004? He's allowed to speak...and guess what, his statements are 100% consistent with what these generals are saying.

I am glad you are comfortable in a military where you would allow your leaders to leave you in harms way, simply because they were afraid to speak out.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

If he was incompetent than he wouldn't be asked to do the same job three different terms.

That guy is retired.
Which makes him a civillian last time I checked.
And that's what I'm saying these others should do if they don't like the system.
Retire and then they can complain.

I'm am comfortable in the miltary,
But I'm gonna have to disagree with your description.

This post was merely on the idea of active duty officers publically criticizing the SecDef.
I'm saying they should retire like the guy you used as an example and then they can say whatever they want.

All you arguments are based on Rumsfeld's incompetence.
I've already stated that I'm not going to debate that there becasue that wasn't the original intent of the post.
I'f you want to go start your own blog,
I may consider it worht my time to drop my opinion in.
Untill that point,
find a different argument.

mg said...

so qualified, professional, career soldiers should keep their mouths shut and just put up with a ridiculous, useless, misdirected policy...



You think men and women that proudly serve should retire rather than try and fix the system and get rid of the faulty leadership. that's what you're saying.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

Like I said,
You're obviously not in the military.

Fed up said...

MG-Several points.

1st-You're saying a lot of things but provide practically no evidence to back it up. If you're going to say such negative things, you better have a reason for us to believe you.

2nd-Who are you anyway? I don't mean that to put you down. What I mean is that everyone reading this knows that Jason is a USAFA cadet and therefore knows a lot more about the military than an ordinary citizen. But we have no clue who you are. What is your personal experience and/or who close to you has personal experience with the military?

3rd-Your last comment was a logical falicy called a false dilemma. Jason stated that he believes that these generals do not have the right to PUBLICLY criticize him as long as they are still in the army. Which is completely true. Any leader of any organization knows that in order to keep an operation running smoothly it is necessary that all the members of the organization learn to support their leader whether or not they agree with him. And if something really is seriously wrong with the leadership (which you seem to believe) then they need to report it to someone who can really, truly do something about it, not just complain about it.

However, and this leads to my 4th point, the CNN article which Jason provided a link to says nothing about the job Rumsfeld is doing, only that certain other people are complaining against him. It seems all your arguments are based on Rumsfelds's incompetence (which Jason has already pointed out); therefore, you either need to back that up with some tangible proof and not just say it, or all your arguments go down the drain.

Who am I? First of all, let me say that I am in now way connected with the military and therefore have no right to say anything about the military without a reliable source. Second, I have studied both logic and debate and therefore have the right to comment that both of you have used logical fallicies and have dropped arguments. Third, my name is of no significance to you.

mg said...

nope, not in the military, but engaged to someone who is, sibling of someone who is, and child of someone who was, and friend of someone who left his legs in Iraq. So i think i'm very well versed in the way the military works - thanks.

When the problem IS the leader of the organization, then going up the foodchain, so to speak, and trying to change from within has failed. The military serves this nation - which is ruled by the people - last i checked we still had a democracy. These generals have every right to voice an opinion as to the faulty logic and faulty planning they have dealt with during this war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have a duty to their men who serve below them to do what they can to protect them.

They have a right and a DUTY to speak out.

His incompetence?? hahahahaha - pick up a newspaper....how many dead in baghdad today? how many dead American soldiers this month? how's that electricity working over there? when are the Americans leaving? and what about Afghanistan? how's that Taliban going? Oh, and where's Osama?

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

Just judging by your arguments,
All that being around the military didn't exactly show you how it really works.
This nation may indeed be a democracy,
But freedom of speech doesn't apply to us the same way it applies to you.

My father was also in the military,
And I didn't understand what it was like untill I got in.
I have a brother whos not in.
And despite the fact that we spend a good amount of time talking about what it's like,
He doesn't understand what the life is like.
I can't speak for the engagment part,
But I do know that engagment isn't the same as marrage,
So I'm going to have to argue that no you don't understand.
You may have a good idea,
better than most,
But you still don't understand.

And as I said before,
We're not going to debate his competency here.
This blog isn't supposed to be a political blog.
If you want to go start your own,
Be my guest.

mg said...

i'm glad you're going to JUDGE my understanding of something i have lived with my entire life...and will continue to live with my entire life.

Engagement's not the same as marriage??!? Well, ours is pretty damn close....but thanks for your childish teenage opinion of what marriage and engagements are really like? are you engaged? are you married? have you ever had a serious girlfriend? trust me, when you do, and that person is in the military....you LIVE it. the good, the bad, the daily life....all of it.

So don't tell me that I don't understand it. Granted, my experience is primarily with the Army, and friends with a few Marines, so maybe your branch is very different....but as i mentioned, i'd be certain that YOUR understanding of what life is like for a soldier in the infantry, is very different than a guy in the Air Force. So maybe its YOU that doesn't understand.

if its not a "political" blog - don't make "political statements" - otherwise, it becomes a political blog.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

It appears as if I've offended you.
I'm sorry if this is the case.
That was not my intention.
I was merely stating my observation.

To be honest,
I really don't beleive that you are so close to miltary people.
If you were,
You wouldn't have been so quick to draw attention away from my previous post with something that had absolutly nothing to do with the current topic.
That and the fact that I've seen you post under at least three different names doesn't help your credability any.

And no,
This isn't a political blog.
How many of my posts have been politically related?
If this was a political blog,
It would have a much higher concentration of politically related topics.
I only post when I feel strongly about a topic.

Fed up said...

"childish teenage opinion"? Wow, mg, once again having to resort to logical fallicies in order to keep up your failing arguments. And I don't really think you're in a place to be saying that engagement and marriage are the same thing, or even close. After all, are YOU married? Have you ever been married? Seems to me you've only experienced one side of the picture. Once you've been married for a year or more-come back and tell us how close engagement and marriage are. Until then, I don't want to hear it.

Second logical fallicy-one "political statement", or even several, does not make it a "political blog". This blog is for those of us who actually care about Jason to know how he's doing and how we can be praying for him. Jason has been very gracious to let you continue to post comments on his blog. If it were me, I would have turned off the anonymous option a long time ago.

Also, if you're going to judge Rumsfeld's incompetency based on the number of soldiers dead, than that also means that George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee-all the U.S. Generals that we look up to today were even more incompetent than Rumsfeld. Just look up the death toll from those wars.

And if things are really so bad that these generals have a "duty" to speak out, they also have a "duty" to retire. They should not give their time and lives to support an organization that is failing enough for them to publicly speak out against it. IF the organization is not failing enough for them to resign, it is not failing enough for them to speak out publicly against it.

мαdd said...

MG-stay on the point. You're wandering topics, trying to keep the argument on your side. If you don't have any further argument, don't make personal attacks. Just don't post or say so.

I agree with Jason that if you don't agree with someone in higher command of you-too bad. It's YOUR job as being uder him/her to respect his/her opinions and orders. Just because you don't agree gives you no right to rebel. I am in several situations right now that I am completely at odds with the opinions of my superiors, but it's my job as a student, as a child, as a volunteer, not to agree, but to cary out orders, as it were. They're older than me, mopre experienced than me, and I have no reason to disbelieve that they understand more about the situations than I.

mg said...

well jason, i've lived it....so i don't really care what you believe. and i was merely commenting on your age and your total lack of experience when it comes to being with someone...yet your willingness to judge. but you didn't answer my questions? do you have a girlfriend in the military? are you engaged to someone in the military? are you married to a woman in the military? do you go to sleep every night with a woman in the military? no - you don't. So don't tell me what i understand or don't understand based upon my relationship.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

Since I have no idea who you are,
You may refer to me as Earth, TECBM, are something to that nature.
I see noe sense in going by first names since I don't know yours.

As for me answering your questions.
You have yet to answer some of mine posted elswhere.
And seeing as how these have nothing to do with the current discusion,
I see no reason why I should answer them.

Not that I have any reason to hide the answer,
but for the same reason as why I ask you te refer to me as Earth.
There are certain cutesies that I beleive should be rendered regardless,
And some that must be mutual.

mg said...

hahahahaha. you have much to learn. good luck.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

A fact I am more than willing to admit.
If that wasn't the case,
I'd have graduated already.

Fed up said...

MG-Why do you always feel it necessary to attack Earth? (I thought it only polite to use that name since he doesn't know who I am) I noticed that in a previous post of yours you stressed the word JUDGE. Do you feel as if we're judging you? That is not our place. As Christians, it would not only be presumptuous to judge you (seeing as we hardly know you) but it would not please our Father in Heaven. I apologize for anything I have said that may be interpreted as judgmental. And although I cannot speak for Earth, I am almost positive he would say the same thing. If I have judged anything, I have tried to judge only your arguments, not you personally.

I feel that what I have posted on this blog has only fueled an argument with mg and has done nothing to help have a decent sharing of opinions. For this reason, I am terminating my side of this conversation.

Palm boy said...

Isn't Rummy a civilian leader, not a general?

If the generals are loosing men on the ground, it is because of the fragging enemy.
In a war thats last 3 yeas, we lost 2800 men. Unprecedented success with the lowest casuality rate in history.... And yet, they still recieve critizisms.

Mg, you seem to have lost the issue of whether the generals should critize Rummy or not, and jumped right to the position of 'they should'. Why?
Btw, Earthy didn't make political statement, he was just stating his opinion with a view from the inside.
Hehe...Why all the questions about his personal life?

mg said...

he passed judgment on my personal life - and what i do or don't understand - i'm simply trying to see what his own "understanding" is based on.

2800 dead is too many for this useless war.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

I'm sorry if you took it that way.
I was merely expressing my opinion for clarification.

As for your term "useless"...
The prevention of the airliner incident this summer was useless?
And all the other prevented attacks that we're not told of are useless?

мαdd said...

MG, just because the media doesn't broadcast all the good things about the war-the lives of civillians saved, the attacks prevented-doesn't mean they don't happen. At risk of sounding hypocritical, peace is impossible without ethier comprimise on both sides, or war. Since comprimise seems out of the question at the moment...

mg said...

oh, thanks Madd....i'm sure you can direct me to the "good things" that are going on in iraq. I've spent this past week catching up with friends and family members who just returned from Iraq. They saw a lot of dead iraqis, and a lot of injured soldiers, and don't even know what they were fighting for anymore. and they saw hospitals and schools without electricity.

that's the "reality" i've heard about. i don't need the news media....thanks.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

She wasn't.
She was merely making a point.

Palm boy said...

Good things?

20 million people are now free from tyranny.
Purple fingers?

Women can vote, and have a voice in their world, something well nigh unheard of in an islamic country.

The dead Iraqis? We have dead americans on the streets everyday, crime is a fact of life.

Electricity is being restored, as is potable water, roads, and sewage systems. Who do you think will maintain it better, Saddam, who had no care for his citizens, or the Iraqi government, which is formed by the people?

Iraq is the central battle ground in the War on Terror, and Bin Laden has made it the focal point of attacking the US. Now, who would we rather have striking at the terrorists? The well trained, expert soldiers in the US Army, USMC, US Navy and the USAF, or cililivans on 39th street?
Thats what it boils down to. We'll be fighting them some where, they are muslim terrorists who have declared a Jihad on the US. Why not fight them in their backyard?

mg said...

the "central battleground on the war on terror" ONLY exists in iraq because we showed up...after abandoning efforts in our legitimate war in afghanistan.

Purple fingers??? hahahahahaha.

you should read the NY Times Sunday Magazine article about Ahmed Chalabi - you know, the orchestrator of this debacle? we were had, but a conman, and YOU sadly buy into this nonsense. good luck in life palmboy.

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

Just my opinion here,
But the seemed more of an insult than arebuttal.
Are you out of good arguments already?

As I recall,
Suddam funded the terrorists.Which means they were there long before we showed up.

mg said...

There is zero evidence that Saddam funded the terrorists...its mere speculation.

and that does not justify creating a new terrorist state in Iraq.

Thank God the Democrats retook control of the House, and will likely retake the Senate so that a phased redeployment can begin and get our nation out of this generation's Vietnam.

mg said...

well it appears Bush & Co. might have actually listened to these editorials. I guess they served their purpose...

TheEarthCanBeMoved said...

First of all...
"An absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence."
Unless you’ve read all the documents that were confiscated after overthrowing Suddam,
You’re not in a position to say that.
I recall hearing in the news a while back,
But I haven’t got the time at the moment to look it up.
Perhaps over the weekend.

Not necessarily.
Just because Rumsfeld is stepping down,
Doesn’t mean it was because of the critics.
It’s very rare that a two term president keeps the same person in the same position both terms.
Much less have the same guy serve two and a half terms like Rummy did.

mg said...

oh earth, such blind faith you have in this president.

i am in a position to say this based on the fact we have been there for 3 1/2 years and found no evidence.

you're arguing that nothing means there could be something. ??

right....the timing....just coincidence. hilarious.

either way, its a great week for this country. Finally some accountability from our Congress.