Eisenhower predicts George Bush

by **flyohiou** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:51 am

president eisenhower's farewell address to the nation... http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/main.html

God help this country who sits at this desk who doesn't know the military like I do. - Eisenhower

click on the pictures to see clips of this film

**Sponsor**

by **Attilathehungry** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:13 am

by **CowboyBebop** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:44 pm

You have officially entered trolldom. Another big yawn....

by **flyohiou** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:15 pm

yeah, eisenhower is an idiot. he has no ideas what he is talking about :roll:

maybe if you guys would stop covering your eyes and ears, this country might not be invading countries with no provocation and passing laws that prohibit permanent detention at their discretion, which is completely contradictory to the constitution. keep letting bush have his way with the country. it is working out so well for us

by **Lonewolfe2015** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:18 pm

That quote could easily apply to Clinton, and both Kerry and Gore (if they entered office) Bush, is a much better military leader than any of those 3, whom were the choices in the past elections, and the past president.

by **flyohiou** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:33 am

that's all conjecture. obviously in your mind, a great military leader is one that only resorts to force. i guess in your mind bush is better than than the majority of his generals whose advice he refused. you must think rumsfeld is a great military leader too

by **Lonewolfe2015** » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:19 pm

flyohiou wrote:that's all conjecture. obviously in your mind, a great military leader is one that only resorts to force. i guess in your mind bush is better than than the majority of his generals whose advice he refused. you must think rumsfeld is a great military leader too

The key thing you said i there was "i guess" I never said anywhere I though he was better than any but Clinton, Kerry, and Gore. So you feel you can assume from that point anyone else. A good bit of the time, generals whom have been in the military most of their lives, are much better at their job than a civilian president. BUT, since when has a president not heard the advice of the generals?

by **steve1633** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:54 pm

No one said Bush didn't HEAR the advice of his generals, the problem is he didn't LISTEN. From the very begining of the war planning there were generals saying that this would recquire more troops and more planning than we were prepared for and that the job would not be as easy as the Bush administration claimed. Obviously Bush ignored that advice and we now find ourself in our current situation, occupying a country we were supposed to liberate and exacerbating the terrorism problem this war was supposed to solve.

by **WeaponOfMassInstruction** » Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:40 pm

I think you need to dig a bit more deeply into the motivation of some (though not all) of the generals who have come out so decisively against Rumsfeld's (and Bush's) prosecution of the war.

Rumsfeld took on the SecDef job with the eye towards totally revamping our armed forces, remodeling it from a large force with mainly conventional military tactics and doctrine capable of dealing with the similarly-disposed Soviet Union's armed forces to one dealing with smaller-scale conflicts and situations that demand rapid deployment.

As is typical when military leaders whose entire professional careers have been built on the status quo are challenged to think outside the box, some ressited the infringement on their turf by a civilian (for historical context, do some research on how General Billy Mitchell was treated when he was advocating the primacy of air power in the 1920s). Some chose to resign in protest of Rumsfeld's actions. Some chose to remain but try their best to obstruct Rumsfeld's proposed changes. And some embraced the new way of thinking and sought to improve it.

Much is made of what Gen. Shinseki says that criticizes the war effort. Little was made of the endorsement of the cause and the plan of Gen. Tommy Franks. I guess your judgement of who to pay attention to and who to ignore depends on your overall opinion of Rumsfeld and Bush.

by **steve1633** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:08 pm

It seems like the generals who were opposed to the changes were right. Hte invasion was not as seemless as Bush and Rummy claimed it would be, we were not greeted as liberators and our troops have regularly complained of equipment shortages. So I'd say that regardless of their biases the generals who opposed the invasion plan were right and their concerns should've been heeded.

by **Lonewolfe2015** » Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:58 pm

steve1633 wrote:It seems like the generals who were opposed to the changes were right. Hte invasion was not as seemless as Bush and Rummy claimed it would be, we were not greeted as liberators and our troops have regularly complained of equipment shortages. So I'd say that regardless of their biases the generals who opposed the invasion plan were right and their concerns should've been heeded.

Yes the troops were greeted, it just depends what areas you refer to. The more heavily terrorist regions, or the people whom laid down their arms as soldiers past as a sign of respect.

by **flyohiou** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:15 pm

anyone seen Why We Fight?