← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 9994 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-09-23
2003-09-23 13:38 | User Profile
[url]http://www.patriotist.com/lang.htm[/url]
Ted Lang CLICK FOR ARCHIVE A Perfumed Prince - AND A MAN FOR THE TIMES! As of only a few days ago, Wesley K. Clark wasn't even sure he would run for the Democrat Party's nomination for president. And as of right now, he doesn't even have the foggiest notion about any key national issues.
It is, however, imperative that this individual be accorded the highest honor in the land, since he is now an announced candidate of the Democrat Party. And as must be expected, the left-leaning, socialist New York Times needs to get immediately involved in clearing the way for this clueless Democrat to be accepted by an even more clueless electorate.
In their article entitled, "Clark's Military Record Offers Campaign Clues," 'reporters' Katherine Q. Seelye and Eric Schmitt, clearly evidencing admiration for Clark in their September 21st report, touches lightly upon Clark's biggest screw-up as an active four star general; namely, his incompetence almost starting World War III.
During Bill Clinton's hobby war in Serbia, General Clark, elevated eventually to NATO supreme commander by his draft-dodging mentor, ordered British and French troops to engage Russian troops to take back the Pristina airport, which had fallen under Russian control. It is obvious to even the most severely feeble-minded that this act could easily have launched World War III. A British general basically told Clark to go to hell, thereby saving Mankind.
Now let's see how the Democrat Party's New York Times handled it: "But four years later [after explaining his profound genius negotiating with Slobodan Milosevic,] he showed himself as what critics call his worst." Only 'critics' say this? How rude of them! "After General Clark successfully [opinion here?] led the 19-member NATO military alliance to victory [WOW!] in Kosovo, he was worried that the Russians might threaten the peacekeeping mission." [Remarks in brackets added.]
Clark was 'worried' about the Russians? Is there a similarity here to the Leftist Hollywood spoof: "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming?" So only when a Democrat is worried about Russians, then it's all right? But now that the reader has been properly prepared so that we can get it out and then quickly move along and put it all behind us, we get two sentences of factual truth: "A British subordinate thought the order so foolhardy and dangerous that he refused to carry it out. According to several published accounts [not critics?,] the subordinate, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson, defiantly told General Clark, 'Sir, I'm not starting World War III for you.'"
Now that the Times and its Jayson Blair fiction writers told a little bit of truth early on, the reader has been prepared for the manufactured, positive bull**** that follows to get Clark started on his new leadership role. "These are the dual aspects of General Clark, 58, who last week plunged [terrific!] into another kind of theater of combat [the kind populated with draft-dodgers?] - joining nine other candidates for the Democratic nomination for president." And now, a commercial message from the Marxist Times: "They reveal an uncommon potential [opinion here?] for leadership but also his unpredictable nature." [Remarks in brackets added.]
There! They've said it! It's all out in the open now. Now let's find out what they really think of him, always keeping in mind this is supposed to be an unbiased news article. "It remains to be seen which Wesley Clark will emerge in the campaign ahead. He has no experience on the campaign trail, which is not to say he has no political experience [gravitas?.] His fast-track rise to the top of the military, earning his first general's star at the youthful age of 43, attests to his deftness." [Me again!]
Here's more: " 'He rose quickly by using his superior intellect and his superior political skills,' said Joe Lockhart, who was President Bill Clinton's spokesman at the White House and worked with General Clark. 'He's not as much as a neophyte as some would like to paint him.'"
And still more: "General Clark's distinguished 32-year active-duty military career is his chief credential for seeking the presidency. It reveals both strengths and shortcomings as it helps to peel back the layers of this man who, for most Americans, is a blank slate."
And: "His career is highlighted by heroics. In Vietnam, he was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart, sustaining four wounds while on patrol one day north of Saigon."
Without presenting any further proof, it should be painfully obvious that the article is not fair, balanced, informative or even journalistically newsworthy. It's an ad campaign for Clark and Democrats.
In their Internet news and commentary website usually identified as being liberal, namely Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's CounterPunch, a piece entitled, "A Vain Pompous Brown-noser - Meet the Real Gen. Clark," paints a very different picture of Wesley K. Clark. And needless to say, it differs greatly from the Jayson Blair fiction writing of the Times' Seelye and Schmitt. "Anyone seeking to understand the bloody fiasco of the Serbian war need hardly look further than the person of the beribboned Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley K. Clark," the CounterPunch piece begins.
It continues, "Politicians and journalists are generally according him a respectful hearing as he discourses on the 'schedule' for the destruction of Serbia, tellingly embracing phrases favored by military bureaucrats such as 'systematic' and 'methodical.' [But] the reaction from former army subordinates is very different. 'The poster child for everything that is wrong with the GO [general officer] corps,' exclaims one colonel, who has had occasion to observe Clark in action, citing, among other examples, his command of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood from 1992 to 1994."
It was during this time of Clark's command of that Fort Hood division that he became the "military advisor and coordinator" for draft-dodger Clinton and his protector Janet Reno. The occasion was the strategy involving the Waco massacre. Here are Cockburn and St. Clair in another one of their articles posted June 1, 1999, entitled "Waco Update: The Delta Force Was There," also on CounterPunch: "Amid Nato military supremo Wesley Clark's onslaught on the civilians of Serbia the question arose: did Clark hone his civilian-killing skills at Waco, where the FBI oversaw the largest single spasm of slaughter of civilians by law enforcement in US history, when nearly a hundred Branch Davidians died amid an assault by tanks, flame-throwers and snipers[?]"
Clark's Waco involvement was, curiously, simply overlooked by the most revered icon of the 'American' press. Getting back to the 'brown-nose' article again: "While Clark's official Pentagon biography proclaims his triumph in 'transitioning the Division into a rapidly deployable force' this officer describes the '1st Horse Division' as 'easily the worst division I have ever seen in 25 years of doing this stuff.'"
The article goes on: "Such strong reactions are common. A major in the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, Colorado when Clark was in command there in the early 1980s described him as a man who 'regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to his career.' While he regards his junior officers with watchful suspicion, he customarily accords the lower ranks little more than arrogant contempt. A veteran of Clark's tenure at Fort Hood recalls the general's 'massive tantrum because the privates and sergeants and wives in the crowded [canteen] checkout lines didn't jump out of the way fast enough to let him through.'"
What becomes clear is that Clark is an opportunistic weasel who loathes and despises the little people, the very ones that he and his New York Times are trying to fool. A real soldier, a real man who joined the military at age 16 and rose to the rank of Colonel as Vietnam's most decorated American combatant, COL. David Hackworth, had this to say about Clark: "Known by those who've served with him as the 'Ultimate Perfumed Prince,' he's far more comfortable in a drawing room discussing political theories than hunkering down in the trenches where bullets fly and soldiers die. An intellectual in warrior's gear. A saying attributed to General George Patton was that it took 10 years with troops alone before an officer knew how to empty a bucket of spit. As a serving soldier with 33 years of active duty under his pistol belt, Clark's commanded combat units - rifle platoon to tank division - for only seven years. The rest of his career's been spent as an aide, an executive, a student and teacher and a staff weenie."
Hasn't America seen enough liars, nation-builders, draft-dodgers, and politicians who know how to feel our pain? Haven't we had enough Democrat Party phonies and demagogues? Why do Democrats now wish to saddle us with this 'aristocrat' that hates the little people who don't get out of his way fast enough? Is this what the party of the 'little guy' thinks will fly? Now we've got nine phonies and a perfumed prince!
Ted Lang is a veteran editorialist, and has written a regular newspaper column. Send him e-mail at [email]tedlang@patriotist.com[/email].
2003-09-23 21:14 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
Your take on the 2004 election is the same as mine.
Bush is the most mediocre man ever to sit in the Oval Office. Despite the Zionist-controlled media coverup of his intellectual shortcomings, his unfitness is beginning to show. Bush is indeed beatable. Clark may be a stalking horse for Hillary. Look for her to enter the race.
It's amzing how big media (television, the one-eyed Jew) has focused in on Wesley Clark. His Jewish father puts him in tight with the tribe. Wesley is clearly a loyal, devoted champion for Israel and the Zionist cause. If he gains power, either as president or vice president, he will demonstrate how much more America can do for Israel.
The law for success in American politics is not what you can do for your country, but rather what you can do for Israel.
-Z-
2003-09-23 21:38 | User Profile
[url]http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/09/Wesley_Clark180903.html[/url]
NATO, in its war against the Serbs, committed a number of acts which I think are very close to war crimes, and General Clark was the commander. - Robert Fisk
Democracy Now Thursday, September 18, 2003.
Robert Fisk on Wesley Clark & Iraq:What is Happening Is An Absolute Slaughter Every Night of Iraqi People
AS the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq approaches 300, we go to Baghdad to hear from London Independent reporter Robert Fisk on the virtually unreported number of Iraqis killed in feuds, looting, revenge killings and raids by U.S. troops.
The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq stands close to 300. While figures of U.S. troops killed or wounded in Iraq are widely disclosed, the number of Iraqis killed or wounded are unknown.
In an article last Sunday, Robert Fisk of the London Independent writes:
In Iraq there are thousands of incidents of violence that never get reported; attacks on Americans that cost civilian lives are not even recorded by the occupation authority press officers unless they involve loss of life among "coalition forces". Go to the mortuaries of Iraq's cities and it's clear that a slaughter occurs each night. Occupation powers insist that journalists obtain clearance to visit hospitals - it can take a week to get the right papers, if at all, so goodbye to statistics - but the figures coming from senior doctors tell their own story. In Baghdad, up to 70 corpses - of Iraqis killed by gunfire - are brought to the mortuaries each day. In Najaf, for example, the cemetery authorities record the arrival of the bodies of up to 20 victims of violence a day. Some of the dead were killed in family feuds, in looting, or revenge killings. Others have been gunned down by US troops at checkpoints or in the increasingly vicious "raids" carried out by American forces in the suburbs of Baghdad and the Sunni cities to the north.
Fisk continues:
"If you count the Najaf dead as typical of just two or three other major cities, and if you add on the daily Baghdad death toll and multiply by seven, almost 1,000 Iraqi civilians are being killed every week - and that may well be a conservative figure." Robert Fisk, Middle East correspondent for the London Independent. Speaking from Baghdad.
TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Well, John Hlinko, we have just reached Robert Fisk in Baghdad. We want to thank you for being with us, cofounder of the DraftWesleyClark.com campaign. Zoltan Grossman, thanks for being with us from the University of Wisconsin.
We're going not to the break right now, which we usually do, but because we have Robert Fisk on his satellite phone at this moment we want to go directly to him.
Robert Fisk, we'll get your comment at the beginning, hearing that Wesley Clark is now running for president as the antiwar warrior. Then we'd like to get your observations of what's happening right now on the ground in Iraq.
ROBERT FISK: I have to say first of all about General Clark, that I was on the ground in Serbia in Kosovo when he ran the war there. He didn't seem to be very antiwar at the time. I had as one of my tasks to go out over and over again to look at the civilian casualties of that have war.
At one point NATO bombed the hospital in which Yugoslav soldiers, against the rules of war, were hiding along with the patients and almost all the patients were killed.
This was the war, remember, where the first attack was made on a radio station, the Serb Radio and Television building. Since then we've had attacks twice on the Al Jazeera television station. First of all in Afghanistan in 2001, then killing their chief correspondent, and again in Baghdad, this year. This was a general who I remember bombed series of bridges, in one of which an aircraft bombed the train and after, he'd seen the train and had come to a stop, the pilot bombed the bridge again.
I saw one occasion when a plane came in, bombed a bridge over a river in Serbia proper, as we like to call it, and after about 12 minutes when rescuers arrived, a bridge too narrow even for tanks, bombed the rescuers.
I remember General Clark telling us that more than 100 Yugoslav tanks had been destroyed in the weeks of that war. And when the war came to an end, we discovered number of Yugoslav tanks destroyed were eleven. 100 indeed!
So this was not a man, frankly whom, if I were an American, would vote for, but not being an American, I don't have to.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk speaking to us in Iraq. And then you have the time that the British general, Michael Jackson, Wesley Clark had told him to get his British troops to the airport before the Russians got there, so it wouldn't be perceived that the Russians were liberating and General Michael Jackson responded to him, 'I'm not going to start World War III'.
ROBERT FISK: Yes. Jackson did indeed say that. One member of Jackson's staff confirmed to me that the quote is true. I think the words -- I think the verb is wrong, but World War III is correct.
It was a very strange atmosphere to that war, over and over again when NATO has bombed the target, it was clearly illegitimate. Or when they killed large number of civilians, they were either silenced, or they lied.
We had the very famous occasion, infamous occasion when American aircraft bombed an Albanian refugee convoy in Kosovo, claimed later or NATO claimed later it was probably Serb aircraft. It was only when we got there and found the NATO markings on the bomb, that NATO fessed up admitted that they had done it themselves and had been confused.
When I went to the scene months later and tracked down the survivors, it turned out that although they were confused, NATO aircraft had gone on bombing that convoy for 35 minutes even though there were civilians there, because mixed in among them, most cruelly, this was an act of Milosevic's regime, were military vehicles as well.
We shouldn't be romantic about the Serb military or the Serb security police they were killers and murderers. But NATO, in its war against the Serbs, committed a number of acts which I think are very close to war crimes, and General Clark was the commander. So this is a man who wants to be the president, democratic president of the United States of America. Well I don't interest myself in what he thinks about the last war in Iraq. I watched it first hand and had my own opinions. But I sure as hell know what it was like to be under the bombs of his war in Serbia.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, I want to ask you about General Powell's visit, Secretary of State General Powell's visit to Baghdad. But we still have Steve Rendall in the studio who is leaving in one minute as we listen to this description of what's happening in Iraq. We were wrapping up the discussion of Wesley Clark whether or not he was for this war. Your final comments, Steve?
STEVE RENDALL: I'd like to just say that politicians would like to be all things to all people. Our problem is not with Wesley Clark's campaign, it's with the media's portrayal of him.
One point I'd like to say, your listeners should go look at the daily column that Clark wrote for The Times of London, right around the time of the fall of Baghdad. He wrote there, for instance, the day after the fall of Baghdad he wrote "Liberation is at hand. Liberation, the powerful bomb that justifies painful sacrifices, erases lingering doubts and reinforces bold actions." He also wrote that George W. Bush and prime minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt".
This is the day after, this is on April 10, the day after the so called fall of Baghdad. He was cheering this event, and it's very hard for us to see reporters casting him as antiwar candidate.
AMY GOODMAN: Steve Rendall, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Robert Fisk, nothing succeeds like success. It sounds like people who didn't know how it was going to turn out wanted to make sure they were on the side of the winning forces, which makes me think of the piece you wrote where you said that Thomas Friedman was in Iraq, he asked a U.S. soldier, he was looking for something, for directions and they said to him, 'that's on the enemy side of the bridge'.
ROBERT FISK: You have to be reality wise, Amy. Here in Baghdad, American troops are attacked I'm told up to 60 times a day, just in Baghdad, and they're losing an average of a man a day. If you're an American soldier, you're 20 years old, you didn't think it was going to work out like this, you were conned into believing the war was a great thing for democracy and liberation, and you're being shot every day, you regard an Iraqi as a potential enemy. So of course the guy said 'enemy side of the bridge'. That's a very telltale remark, because it shows how terribly wrong everything has gone for military, for the U.S. administration, our own prime minister Tony Blair.
But individually you find American soldiers here who can be very sympathetic and who realize it's gone wrong. I talked to U.S. troops in the streets of Baghdad, and they do not want to vote for the Republican party, if they ever did before in the next election in the United States.
You also find soldiers who behaving very badly with lack of fire discipline, lack of discipline of every kind. I was town in Fallujah a few weeks ago where American soldiers saw a man sitting in a chair in the street said, 'you get up and I'll break your ****ing neck'. Well, that is not the kind of language that is going to win hearts and minds. When I complained to his sergeant about the way he had spoken, he made excuses and said 'well the guy got up at 3:00 this morning, he's been shot at every day, he's been here since March or whatever'. So I said well, you know, I understand all that. One has to have sympathy as a human being for another human being in a predicament. But it was your country that wanted to invade this place. You were desperate to come in, you didn't want the arms inspectors, you haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. Now you're here, and you don't like it.
And this is the big problem over and over again, I'm finding soldiers who say, 'yes, we believe we can help the Iraqi people'. Then you find many, many officers below that who say, 'I want to go home'. And this is an Army that is tired, low morale, low fire discipline, low discipline all around. The number of shootings of civilians is skyrocketing. I've just been talking to you about today. If you go into the hospitals here in the afternoon..
JUAN GONZALEZ: Robert, I want to ask you about the issue of low morale. Those of us who remember the Vietnam War understand that the major turning point was when those soldiers there realized that they were not engaged in a war of liberation, they gradually began to build up resistance and enormous morale problems with soldiers going AWOL and shooting their own officers at times. Are you seeing any signs that this demoralization among the troops may possibly even lead to resistance within the ranks of the soldiers?
ROBERT FISK: Well, I'd say we haven't reached Vietnam stage yet. No one is fragging their own officers. There was one incident, I think it was in Kuwait, where a grenade was thrown by a U.S. soldier at other U.S. soldiers.
We haven't reached the Vietnam point, and after all America was losing thousands of troops in Vietnam. And it's only in the hundreds in Iraq since the war began. As I say when I talk to ordinary soldiers, there's a great difference, for example, between units that were here during the war and haven't left and actually fought in the war, lost quite a few people for them anyway, and are still here and feel that they have been lied to because they were supposed to have gone home after the victorious, wonderful war in which they were liberating people.
And the newly arrived troops, for example the 101st Airborne up in Mosul whose morale seems to be a lot higher, although frankly, their attitude to house raids, breaking down doors and screaming at people doesn't seem to be much better than say, the Third Infantry division, who clearly don't have the same morale problems. But we're not at the Vietnam stage, and we shouldn't pretend that we are. What we should compare it to is Lebanon in 1982, when it was six months before anyone threw a stone at an American soldier. But now within six months they killed scores of American soldiers here in Iraq. And what has happened is that there is a real guerilla army working increasingly sophisticated. I was very interested to note, when I met the U.S. general who was in charge of prisoners of war at the former prison outside Baghdad three days ago, she actually referred to a resistance force. She didn't talk about terrorists. not once did it cross her lips.
What you find is that the real soldiers, I'm talking about non-reservists, full time U.S. soldiers, they know they're involved in a guerilla war. They know it's not working. They know the place is falling to bits. What they tell me is when it gets up to the generals on your side of the lake, they don't want to admit it.
I have colleague of mine on the State Department Press Corps, which arrived with Colin Powell, I was present at Powell's very strange press conference here. And my colleague told me they still don't realize in Washington how bad it is. That's the impression I get on the ground here.
AMY GOODMAN: Why was it strange? We only have 30 seconds, your phone probably has less, but I just want to get to Fallujah, to the U.S. soldiers who apparently came a day before, who killed something like eight Iraqi policeman and a Jordanian guard this month.
ROBERT FISK: I went down there. What obviously happened is the policemen, once they were on under fire screamed 'we are the police, we're the police', and the shooting went on. They then fled into the Jordanian Army hospital compound, and the Americans then opened fire at the compound for up to 30 minutes, setting several of the buildings on fire. This is a hospital run by America's Jordanian allies. These were soldiers without fire discipline.
You told me for the first time, I haven't learned this here, that they just arrived in Iraq. Well clearly have a lot to learn, don't they.
AMY GOODMAN: The report is American soldiers just arrived in Fallujah, the day before. But finally, the Powell press conference.
ROBERT FISK: The extraordinary thing was, Powell presented everything as upbeat. He suggested that journalists were concentrating on negative things. He wasn't trying, he said, to persuade us how we should tell our stories or what our agenda should be, but we should concentrate on all the goodwill towards the occupation forces or the C.P.A., the coalition.
Ambassador Bremer, the pro-consul here, the American pro-consul stepped forward to say there were more than 1,600,000 barrels of oil produced the previous day. That doesn't change the fact that Iraqi is still importing oil, even though it's one of the richest oil countries in the world. But you simply couldn't get Powell in any question to talk about the fact that so many things are going wrong. You wondered had he brought the fantasy from Washington, or was he being fed the fantasy here in Baghdad by Bremer and his staff at the C.P.A.
A fact is that months after the war was officially supposed to be over, there were hundreds of people dying in this country every week by violence. I'm just watching two Apache helicopters as I speak to you now just flying over the buildings in front of me, on 'antiterrorist patrol', as it's called. There is a real guerilla war underway here, and when you are on the ground you realize it's moving out of control. Washington is still trying to present this as a success story and it's not, anymore than Afghanistan.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank I very much, Robert Fisk for being with us. Robert Fisk is correspondent for the Independent newspaper based in Beirut right now in Iraq. returning as he has so many times.
Thank you for joining us. You are listening to Democracy Now! .
2003-09-25 02:56 | User Profile
AntiYuppie,
[QUOTE]Think of Wesley as John McCain with Jewish ancestry.[/QUOTE]
Don't be too sure about McCain now. Any day he's likely to "discover" his Jewish roots as well. It seems all these other idiots running for President either have them or are married to them.
2003-09-25 16:27 | User Profile
Hugh Shelton, former Chief of Staff of the Army, stated Wes Clark would never get his vote. Shelton said Clark transgressed his standards for integrity and honor. [QUOTE]And: [I]"[B]His career is highlighted by heroics. In Vietnam, he was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart, sustaining four wounds while on patrol one day north of Saigon." [/B][/I] [/Quote]Four purple hearts in one day is almost unheard of. I am aware regulations state otherwise, but many in Special Forces were wounded 6 to 8 times in one day when stranded in Laos and Cambodia and received one Purple Heart. I suspect Clark got the West Pointer pass.
2003-09-25 18:27 | User Profile
My opinion General Shelton has gone way up. He deserves some kind of commendation medal for trashing Clark.
-Z-
2003-09-25 20:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Zoroaster]
In their article entitled, "Clark's Military Record Offers Campaign Clues," 'reporters' Katherine Q. Seelye and Eric Schmitt, clearly evidencing admiration for Clark in their September 21st report, touches lightly upon Clark's biggest screw-up as an active four star general; namely, his incompetence almost starting World War III.
During Bill Clinton's hobby war in Serbia, General Clark, elevated eventually to NATO supreme commander by his draft-dodging mentor, ordered British and French troops to engage Russian troops to take back the Pristina airport, which had fallen under Russian control. It is obvious to even the most severely feeble-minded that this act could easily have launched World War III. A British general basically told Clark to go to hell, thereby saving Mankind.
Now let's see how the Democrat Party's New York Times handled it: "But four years later [after explaining his profound genius negotiating with Slobodan Milosevic,] he showed himself as what critics call his worst." Only 'critics' say this? How rude of them! "After General Clark successfully [opinion here?] led the 19-member NATO military alliance to victory [WOW!] in Kosovo, he was worried that the Russians might threaten the peacekeeping mission." [Remarks in brackets added.]
Clark was 'worried' about the Russians? Is there a similarity here to the Leftist Hollywood spoof: "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming?" So only when a Democrat is worried about Russians, then it's all right? But now that the reader has been properly prepared so that we can get it out and then quickly move along and put it all behind us, we get two sentences of factual truth: "A British subordinate thought the order so foolhardy and dangerous that he refused to carry it out. According to several published accounts [not critics?,] the subordinate, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson, defiantly told General Clark, 'Sir, I'm not starting World War III for you.'" [/QUOTE]
What a :censored:ing moron this Clark!! Did he honestly think he could beat Russian paratroopers, which any sane military anaylst will admit are more than capable to take on America's best troops?
Yes we can't have the dumbass drunken Russkies being part of the peacekeeping mission(or having their own sector to patrol) because they'll be the only ones who actually defend the bad Serbs from those sweet innocent narco-terrorists the KLA.
Now the US wants Russia to send troops to Iraq. Well :censored: you Bush! If Russian troops are sent to Iraq there better not be any repeat of this Kosovo bull:censored:
2003-09-26 07:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]What a :censored:ing moron this Clark!! Did he honestly think he could beat Russian paratroopers, which any sane military anaylst will admit are more than capable to take on America's best troops?
Yes we can't have the dumbass drunken Russkies being part of the peacekeeping mission(or having their own sector to patrol) because they'll be the only ones who actually defend the bad Serbs from those sweet innocent narco-terrorists the KLA.
Now the US wants Russia to send troops to Iraq. Well :censored: you Bush! If Russian troops are sent to Iraq there better not be any repeat of this Kosovo bull:censored:[/QUOTE]
No offence, but in conventional conflict any time after the collapse of the Soviet Union up to the present, an American force would destroy a comparable Russian force. the Russian military has performed and continues to perform poorly in Chechnya. For example, Russian forces continue to take worse causalties in tiny Chechnya than American are taking in occupying vast Iraq and Afganistan.
Russian military stength on paper may appear impressive, but the reality of poor training, poor leadership, obsolete equipment, poor maintance of said equipment, poor morale, corruption and supply shortages means that the Russian military's actual strength is quite pathetic.
2003-09-26 07:21 | User Profile
Perun,
[QUOTE]What a :censored:ing moron this Clark!! Did he honestly think he could beat Russian paratroopers, which any sane military anaylst will admit are more than capable to take on America's best troops?[/QUOTE]
While I'm glad that Gen. Jackson didn't carry out Clark's stupid order and will admit that the Russian paratroop arm are fine troops, the comment above by you, Perun, is not only insulting as hell, but dumb on top of it. Arrogance like that has gotten many a good man killed. Whether if you wish to aknowledge it or not, the U.S. Army still has some very fine soldiers in it who are more than up for anything, as I'm sure that a professional Russian officer would admit. Your comment above not only insults myself and people I served with, but those you admire so much. Think about this.
2003-09-26 13:37 | User Profile
Damned Democrats! If they'd nominate someone who's just a little bit reasonable a lot of voters who are disgusted with Bush's immigration, AA, and gun control policies would sit this one out, but if they choose Waco Wes it's going to be hard as hell to argue with the lesser of two evils crowd. And of course Jorge will interpret that support as a mandate for amnesty and all kinds of other nastiness. :furious: