T1B

Did not see this one coming. Another genuine American bad ass gone.



http://news.msn.com/us/source-retired-g ... opf-dies-1

Derron wrote:Another genuine American bad ass gone.

...Well, he was American anyway and he's gone.

mvscal wrote:

Derron wrote:Another genuine American bad ass gone.

...Well, he was American anyway.

I've read previous comments of yours where you tore Schwarzkopf a new asshole...

Why so meek? Is it the "holiday spirit"?

I think he was battling "CA" for some time. RIP old trooper.

Meek about what? His persona was a complete fraud. He was a bald faced liar. He was also a ham-fisted mediocrity and a total embarassment to operational art.

mvscal wrote:Meek about what? His persona was a complete fraud. He was a bald faced liar. He was also a ham-fisted mediocrity and a total embarassment to operational art.

It's never not funny when some cowardly messageboard loser hiding under his hood of internet anonymity takes a run at a genuine American hero.

So his 3 Silvers, the Bronze, and others in that shit hole in SE Asia were made up?
Explain.

Wolfman wrote:
Explain.

Clear?

He had a lot of charm and charisma and didn't he help free a country from being overtaken by Saddam Hussein? I'd say he was heck of a person.

mvscal wrote:His persona was a complete fraud. He was a bald faced liar.

You ever stop to think the potatoes au gratin you served him MAY have been a little runny?

Roach wrote:

mvscal wrote:Meek about what? His persona was a complete fraud. He was a bald faced liar. He was also a ham-fisted mediocrity and a total embarassment to operational art.

And what are you besides a faceless internet pot shot artist.
Explain.

What did artists ever do to you to invoke you lumping this moron in w them?

Dee Snutz wrote: What did artists ever do to you to invoke you lumping this moron in w them?

Dr_Phibes wrote:

Dee Snutz wrote: What did artists ever do to you to invoke you lumping this moron in w them?

I see you working. But Soup Cans sold for millions. I doubt that mvscal's estate sale will be patronized by anyone more than hoarding auction scavengers looking for no-stick cookware and maybe some salvageable aluminum.

Lots o' tiny peeners strainin' a'gin the denim in defense of dearly departed Norman.

You saw tough guy press conferences and bold assurances. I saw the lie on the ground. He was an asshatted blowhard. His "plan" was completely backwards, opfor intelligence was wildly overstated. What actually happened bore absolutely no resemblance to the briefings we received. It was an artless fumble at the bra strap of an operation and was probably dicktated one handed.

The most comical stupidity was calling VII Corps' maneuever a "Hail Mary" as if it were some sort of desperate long odds gamble executed with granite-chinned sang froid against overwhelming odds instead of the turkey shoot hootenanny that it really was and which ultimately failed in its objective to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

We left the job unfinished. My team chief knew it. I knew it. Everyone in my unit knew it. Norman and Colon Powlyp damn sure knew it.

mvscal wrote:Lots o' tiny peeners strainin' a'gin the denim in defense of dearly departed Norman.

You saw tough guy press conferences and bold assurances.

No, I think it was the less than 200 US military casualties and the complete decimation of the "Elite Republican Guard" in a matter 29 days that had me convinced. So you were some pussy that joined the military looking for college money only to find yourself called to duty? Pissing your pants in the the most one sided war ever? Thank God we we weren't counting on you to defeat the Nazis.

mvscal wrote:.

We left the job unfinished. My team chief knew it. I knew it. Everyone in my unit knew it. Norman and Colon Powlyp damn sure knew it.

There is no way you actually served and are actually this dumb.

No apocalypse, I agree with 1-malt. Stormin' Norman was a fraud just like the entire U.S. military since the end of WWII. His Vietnam experience was of course a horrid failure. The blistering of the Iraqis in Desert Storm was an industry trade show, nothing more. Like Petraeus and Crystal, he's a bad memory best forgotten.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No apocalypse, I agree with 1-malt. Stormin' Norman was a fraud just like the entire U.S. military since the end of WWII. His Vietnam experience was of course a horrid failure. The blistering of the Iraqis in Desert Storm was an industry trade show, nothing more. Like Petraeus and Crystal, he's a bad memory best forgotten.

By the time he was 8 yrs old, he was probably more accomplished than you as you posted this stupidity.

mvscal wrote:Lots o' tiny peeners strainin' a'gin the denim in defense of dearly departed Norman.

You saw tough guy press conferences and bold assurances. I saw the lie on the ground. He was an asshatted blowhard. His "plan" was completely backwards, opfor intelligence was wildly overstated. What actually happened bore absolutely no resemblance to the briefings we received. It was an artless fumble at the bra strap of an operation and was probably dicktated one handed.

The most comical stupidity was calling VII Corps' maneuever a "Hail Mary" as if it were some sort of desperate long odds gamble executed with granite-chinned sang froid against overwhelming odds instead of the turkey shoot hootenanny that it really was and which ultimately failed in its objective to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

We left the job unfinished. My team chief knew it. I knew it. Everyone in my unit knew it. Norman and Colon Powlyp damn sure knew it.

I have one more question. What was your confirmed kill count?

mvscal wrote:We left the job unfinished. My team chief knew it. I knew it. Everyone in my unit knew it. Norman and Colon Powlyp damn sure knew it.

So you're saying he should have arranged a coup d'etat.

Why do you hate America?

I don't have any sort of indepth knowledge of desert storm other than it was the most one sided asskicking in the history of military matchups.

It was the perfect storm of a very well trained/equipped force going up against a shit force on the ideal court, a few hundred square miles of flat desert. The game plan wasn't really an issue. Even YAFJ could have handicapped this one.

As for how good a plan it was, I couldn't say, but, mvscal is a student of this kind of shit and unlike the rest of us, he had front row seats. That is kinda handy if you want to know what really happened.

As for him not finishing the job, it's not fair to put that on Norm. it was a decision made above his paygrade. I'm sure he put his 2 cents worth in, but I don't know what that 2 cents was.

I would be interested in a detailed critique from Gen. mvscal on why the DS playbook was flawed and how he would have done it better.

Yeah, that would be great. After all mvscal was sort of the Forrest Gump of Desert Storm.

Not only was he in on the fighting, he was there for the stratagerizing and even the decision making.

I wonder if he ever owned a shrimp boat.

mvscal wrote:Lots o' tiny peeners strainin' a'gin the denim in defense of dearly departed Norman.

You saw tough guy press conferences and bold assurances. I saw the lie on the ground. He was an asshatted blowhard. His "plan" was completely backwards, opfor intelligence was wildly overstated. What actually happened bore absolutely no resemblance to the briefings we received. It was an artless fumble at the bra strap of an operation and was probably dicktated one handed.

The most comical stupidity was calling VII Corps' maneuever a "Hail Mary" as if it were some sort of desperate long odds gamble executed with granite-chinned sang froid against overwhelming odds instead of the turkey shoot hootenanny that it really was and which ultimately failed in its objective to encircle Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

We left the job unfinished. My team chief knew it. I knew it. Everyone in my unit knew it. Norman and Colon Powlyp damn sure knew it.

Its part of the persona of an enlisted guy to bitch about his superiors isnt it? No matter how much of an ass kicking that war was, there is always fault to be found with the higher-ups.

Used to work with a few guys in 1994 when I was in college that were in Desert Storm. They complained all the time. One day the boss came to me and said, "you know, I thought when you hire guys that were in the military, you hire guys with good discipline and who work hard? These guys bitch and whine about everything"

Ive been told that this is a unifying tactic used by the military to bond soldiers. True?

Trampis wrote:
Its part of the persona of an enlisted guy to bitch about his superiors isnt it? No matter how much of an ass kicking that war was, there is always fault to be found with the higher-ups.

Used to work with a few guys in 1994 when I was in college that were in Desert Storm. They complained all the time. One day the boss came to me and said, "you know, I thought when you hire guys that were in the military, you hire guys with good discipline and who work hard? These guys bitch and whine about everything"

Ive been told that this is a unifying tactic used by the military to bond soldiers. True?

Once the few enlisted that make E-7 and above, the bitching generally stops. So no, it's not a unifying tactic. Listening to the constant whining from some of the younger E's was a daily annoying event.

NJP is a great motivator to shut them up or they end up out on the streets.

No idea why mv decided he's above and beyond the General.

Mikey wrote:Not only was he in on the fighting, he was there for the stratagerizing and even the decision making.

I've given a good deal of study since then and was back in Kuwait in 1992 to see how everything played out.

smackaholic wrote:I don't have any sort of indepth knowledge of desert storm other than it was the most one sided asskicking in the history of military matchups.

It was the perfect storm of a very well trained/equipped force going up against a shit force on the ideal court, a few hundred square miles of flat desert. The game plan wasn't really an issue. Even YAFJ could have handicapped this one.

Sure it was an asskicking but, so what? Did the asskicking accomplish the stated objectives? Our primary objectives were to liberate Kuwait and, in the process, annihilate Iraqi forces in zone which would weaken Saddam's hold on power and expose him to dispatch by internal revolt. The key units we focused on were the four Republican Guard divisions in Kuwait. We managed to wipe out two of them. The other two got away almost completely intact with vehicles and heavy weapons. I know this for a fact. We, and by we I mean the 1st Cavalry Division, were about to attack them when we were told to stop. We watched them drive away into Basra. Norman's "closing gate" press conference was total bullshit. The order to cease fire was political but it was made under military advisement from Blackhead and Powlyp.

The order meant that two nearly full strength RG divisions escaped Kuwait more or less intact and were available to Saddam to crush the Shiite uprising against him. The uprising failed and a decade of containment requiring religiously "insensitive" basing (Saudi Arabia) to enforce a "no-fly" zone which was no longer required since the uprising had been crushed. It was a decade of comic opera weapons "inspections" with Saddam truculently hiding weapons he didn't have and our inspectors left scratching their heads cluelessly. None of them ever suspected that Saddam was hiding....nothing at all. Even Scott Ritter at his kiddy-diddling best only managed to state the obvious that we didn't actually know a thing about the state of Saddam's NBC programs.

Any result that left Saddam Hussein in power was a failure and left us with unfinished business. This wasn't news to anyone in the Bush/Clinton/W administrations. They all would have prefered to kick the can down the road until 9/11. That did change the game. The looked and saw what a pile of idiots like AQ could do on a shoestring budget and then compared that to Saddam with access to an entire state at his disposal and rightly concluded that Saddam was capable of even greater mischief. In a way, Saddam was caught flatfooted by the changing paradigm as well and his bluff was finally called in 2003.

Of course none of that would have ever been necessary if we had had a competant operational plan based on realistic assessments of Iraqi numbers and capability in 1990-91. Even the clumsy planning could have been overcome if we had had political leadership with the balls to finish the job. The army was right there and would never be stronger. The Cold War drawdown had barely begun in 1991. It would be complete by 2003. The Army had 730K active duty personnel in 1990. In 2003, that was down to 490K.

Roach wrote:Shouldn't you be writing this to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army General Martin E. Dempsey?

It's already been written, dumbfuck. Did you think I'm the only one with this opinion? It's already happened. The fallout speaks for itself. They even tried to learn lessons from it in 2003 by going in with a leaner and more aggressive force with Baghdad as the objective.

You were sold a shiny bob of bullshit about what a heroic triumph Desert Storm was led by a "tough, no nonsense commander who shit fire and spat nails." Sure he had a temper and was a raging cockhead to subordinates. Whoopdee do. How "colorful" of him. Everything about him was a carefully contrived persona for public consumption. His plan highlighted his own command failures which were extensive and inexcusable.

I would like to give him credit for some marginal personal intelligence but that is difficult given his bizarre inability to ever come to grips with the actual condition of the Iraqi army and plan accordingly.

Roach wrote:Well he's not my hero, and I sure do believe our loving government can feed us full of shit . . .

But it just seems to me you are a case of sour grapes, very angry about it all, and absolute in your opinions. Like no one else knows the truth of it. Like a bunch of enlisted guys I have known.

Happy new year, I hope you find happiness in your history studies.

Doesn't sound like sour grapes. Just sound like someone a little annoyed that we didn't finish his ass on the first go round and ended up having to go back.

It isn't sour grapes or annoyance. It is a simple observation of fact nor am I the only one to make the observation. Here's a good place to start.

http://www.amazon.com/Generals-War-Insi ... B000Y8SDUC

Desert Storm was a dubiously qualified success at best and was by no means decisive in any meaningful result. That much should be obvious by now, shouldn't it?

We pulled our punch at the last minute against Saddam. That isn't a guess or speculation. It's a fact. Isn't it in our best interests to rationally examine the consequences of those decisions? Why was it done? Was it, in honest retrospect, the smartest way to do extricate ourselves or did it create the circumstances for the ghastly butchery of the Shiite revolution which we encouraged (but did nothing to support)? Half the the Republican Guard got away clean. This isn't an opinion. It's a fact. When we failed to stop them, we doomed the rebellion to failure and then stood by and watched it happen.

We fucked up. They died and we would have to fix it ourselves eventually at bitter cost. It sure would have been nice if we could have gotten the job right the first time, don't you think? Or is that an unreasonable criticism of this great American? The force to do it was right there, ready, willing and able like it never would be again.

"Stormin" Norman was planning for Verdun and, instead, gave a whack to a rotten pinata. He wanted to be George Patton and only managed to reprise George McClellan with his wild-eyed overestimations of Iraqi strength and capability. And, like McClellan, he categorically failed to pursue a clearly beaten adversary to a decisive conclusion and then puffed himself up like a little toad and disappeared into a cloud of public relations. He didn't have the killer's instinct to finish that any successful general has to have. That's just the way it is.

Trampis wrote:Used to work with a few guys in 1994 when I was in college that were in Desert Storm. They complained all the time. One day the boss came to me and said, "you know, I thought when you hire guys that were in the military, you hire guys with good discipline and who work hard? These guys bitch and whine about everything"

Ive been told that this is a unifying tactic used by the military to bond soldiers. True?

Did they get the job done bitching and whining aside?

It's understood that lower enlisted will complain. It's almost an unwritten rule. Grunts gripe and gossip like old women. It's also understood that failure to produce results will invariably occasion a foot kicked off deep in their asses. Your boss could have solved all his problems by hiring just one former sergeant major.

mvscal wrote: Any result that left Saddam Hussein in power was a failure and left us with unfinished business. This wasn't news to anyone in the Bush/Clinton/W administrations. They all would have prefered to kick the can down the road until 9/11. That did change the game. The looked and saw what a pile of idiots like AQ could do on a shoestring budget and then compared that to Saddam with access to an entire state at his disposal and rightly concluded that Saddam was capable of even greater mischief.

That's revisionist history, from a practical perspective - no sane person at the the time woud have anticipated neo-conservative foreign policy.
There was no unfinished business, vengeance isn't a logical policy tool - it is/was a bizarre holocaust fantasy and you've paid the price, you're still paying it now.

mvscal wrote:It isn't sour grapes or annoyance. It is a simple observation of fact nor am I the only one to make the observation. Here's a good place to start.

http://www.amazon.com/Generals-War-Insi ... B000Y8SDUC

Desert Storm was a dubiously qualified success at best and was by no means decisive in any meaningful result. That much should be obvious by now, shouldn't it?

We pulled our punch at the last minute against Saddam.

It was decisive in every result. We drove Iraq out of Kuwait. Schwarzkopf wanted to march into Baghdad and level the Hussein regime at that time. Bush had the foresight to know that he needed Saddam to police the middle east and keep that powder keg under control. It was the smart thing to do to leave him in position. Schwarzkopf was no fraud. He was a soldier. And soldiers take orders.

That's horseshit. W could have and should have had Saddam's head on a pike and handed the keys over to someone a little more likley to play ball with us.

smackaholic wrote:That's horseshit. W could have and should have had Saddam's head on a pike and handed the keys over to someone a little more likley to play ball with us.

Good idea. But we aren't in the business of just killing rulers and placing our own shill in their place. There's some logistical problems w that.

Dee Snutz wrote:

smackaholic wrote:That's horseshit. W could have and should have had Saddam's head on a pike and handed the keys over to someone a little more likley to play ball with us.

Good idea. But we aren't in the business of just killing rulers and placing our own shill in their place. There's some logistical problems w that.

Bullshit. We've been in that business a long time. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not. If we had whacked saddam and had a little sitdown with his replacement explaining that we could do it again, we might have gotten somewhere.

The Shah was an example of such an arrangment. Had jimmy carter the slightest bit of a ballsack, we might still have such an arrangement there. Hell they might even have evolved to some semblance of a secular democratic society today rather than the islamo-cunts they are.

This is a thread about Norman Schwarzkopf. You can Monday morning quarteback George Herbert Walker all you'd like. It doesn't for one second diminish Stormin Norman's legacy.

Dr_Phibes wrote:

mvscal wrote: Any result that left Saddam Hussein in power was a failure and left us with unfinished business. This wasn't news to anyone in the Bush/Clinton/W administrations. They all would have prefered to kick the can down the road until 9/11. That did change the game. The looked and saw what a pile of idiots like AQ could do on a shoestring budget and then compared that to Saddam with access to an entire state at his disposal and rightly concluded that Saddam was capable of even greater mischief.

That's revisionist history,

Have you had you head stuck up your ass for the last nine years? That was the entire reason for the war. Saddam was not in compliance with the inspections program. All we knew for sure is that he was hiding something. Why else would stonewall on the inspections? It was decided that he needed to come clean or get removed by force.

There isn't any "revisionist" history right there.

mvscal wrote:Saddam was not in compliance with the inspections program.

No one is in compliance with anything.

You can cherry-pick any country you want to turn into dust tomorrow by massaging an inflated casus belli.




I'm sure Equatorial Guinea isn't in "compliance" with something or other.

mvscal wrote:
Have you had you head stuck up your ass for the last nine years? That was the entire reason for the war. Saddam was not in compliance with the inspections program. All we knew for sure is that he was hiding something. Why else would stonewall on the inspections? It was decided that he needed to come clean or get removed by force.

There isn't any "revisionist" history right there.

How about this, can you get back on task and tell us why you hate Norman Schwarzkopf in a nice, tidy, un-convoluted, non coma inducing few sentences? Because thus far, you just look like an uninformed, dumb ass, malcontent.

And don't post any links to other people's thoughts. TIA.

Martyred wrote:I'm sure Equatorial Guinea isn't in "compliance" with something or other.

Is "Equatorial Guinea" not in compliance with numerous Chapter 7 resolutions with military force authorized for non-compliance? A quick yes or no should suffice.