Tuesday, February 21, 2006

ARMY: Strength for now strength for later

That is if you survive. And in the mean time you might have to kill or torture a people against the better judgement of your own people, and against your personal and religious beliefs. You may have to donate your grandchildren and even your own resources to the cause of the need of your force.

The solider above all others should know that war is not a solution to a problem. It is an option available to a prepared nation that is far too often used, misused, used as an excuse, and used in ill-prepared manner that creates a bigger problem.

We should never use force when we do not have to. Instead the bush machine used careless, ill planned, ill prepared, overly optmistic, and overly drastic plans.

The real crime of this war is that we let Donald Rumsfled make drastic changes to the war plans.

Let me explain what the war plans are. Imagine a really thick book. That has a dictionary type layout of every possbile war america might encounter. The answers are answers to the following questions:
  • what do we have there now?
  • what can me move now?
  • how can we move more stuff at a given rate?
  • what limitations exist to engaging this enemy?
  • what are the causes of the limitations be it political, economic, resouce realted?
  • what suggestions and/or advantages do we possess that could help (or hurt) us?

  • These answers are the repeated in longer more detailed answers a few times.




The to understand the crime that was commited we must understand thoughes involved. Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney. Both former friends of the elder Bush all economicaly tied to various middle-easters oil companys. What they are not is tactical advisors. They did not study intellgence, military use, or even participate in the military even when they were drafted. Cheney had a gaint wart on his ass (twice). And I don't know about D.R.

Anyway next I need to bring up the subject of micromanagement. Micromanagement is defined somewhere on goole as ...type of poor management where the manager over-manages people unnecessarily. Instead of giving people general instructions and they monitor and assesse every step.

Concern for details, demands to know everything and the use information hiding techniques are common characteristics. Micromanagers force their opinions and decisions into everthing. There opinion is never better than a consisence of their peers. So when in power they will force bad ideas and demand a close minded thinking approach. In other words they will demand that we see the world in an incorrect world view so to justify their actions.

Donald Rumsfled used the idea of technological advancements (achievments from the clinton era) to make the claim that the war plans were in error. And then he hit that giant book and almost wet himself. There were so many details in that book for him to alter, change, reconsider that he had a mental micomanagement orgasm.

The afganistan war went well right? (we won in the short run and didn't get lose a large amount of life) Well that's because Donald Rumsfled was caught off gaurd. He didn't see it coming. Condi didn't give him the memo I suppose. Donland wasn't able to change thoes plans in time, the war was already over. Cheney was in kill sand nigger mode and Bush saw that Donald Rumsfeld wanted to get involved in military decisions. So off Donald Rumsfeld went to fuck up everything to he very last detail.

Once in an interview Donald answered like this:
There are 3 parts to your question.... what we know we don't we know, what we know we know, and what we don't know to know.

Why don't you just say "Fuck you reporter sit down and shut up".

We sent in our troops without allowing invistigations to continue.
We sent in our troops without 100% armor protection.
We sent in out troops without engough gas masks, and biological defense suits.
We started a war, we shot first, we pulled the trigger.

This is a good example of what micromanagement does to a system. I had a psychotic type-A personality micromanager boss once. It always seemed to me when and where he stopped conserning himself in there was success. Only what he didn't touch was not changed altered, or further fucked up in some manner.



Did we have a damn good reason?
Did we do a damn good job?
Did we fix it or make it worse?
Did we do the right thing and are we really proud of the job we are doing and have done?




Pretending to answer these questions as Donald Rumsfeld:

We sent in our troops without allowing invistigations to continue.
We started a war, we shot first, we pulled the trigger.


Well, we had to. It was imparitive that we set a deadline and kept to it, and that they would know that we would keep to it, and that we did and what the repprecussions of that were. What would be worse is not setting a deadline and not keeping to it.

Not keeping a deadline not setting a deadline would give you less knowledge about the situation. Our goal is not to entangle ourselves into a long battle with these people. Our goal is to make sure they don't have any WMD, and can't use them if they did. You decided to break the inspection deadlines for your own reasons.

Powell himself testifies on this very subject before the war. Their missles sucked and can't travel very far. The antraix we sent them died out at the predetermined date as planned.

We sent in our troops without 100% armor protection.
We sent in out troops without engough gas masks, and biological defense suits.


Well of couse not. We have different sets of people that have different needs. Some people need more sentitive equipment, some need armor, some need some of both; and this is repeated though out the.....

Some of my friends got shot and died over there. They would have been ok. I guess they were in the wrong set of people at the wrong time.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home