Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Simply look the information up online. It is there for all to see. Type Strategic Defense Planning Guide, look for the one authored by Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, and then Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline Project or Afghanistan Oil Pipeline Project and it will amaze you. After this, look at a map, watch Micheal Moore's movie Farenheit 911 (I hate the Liberal b _ _ _ _ _ d myself, but I try to keep an open mind), and then "connect the dots" as so many so called intelligence people like to say. Whalla!
It's not rocket science my boy!
Have a nice day.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
Simply look the information up online. It is there for all to see. Type Strategic Defense Planning Guide, look for the one authored by Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, and then Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline Project or Afghanistan Oil Pipeline Project and it will amaze you. After this, look at a map, watch Micheal Moore's movie Farenheit 911 (I hate the Liberal b _ _ _ _ _ d myself, but I try to keep an open mind), and then "connect the dots" as so many so called intelligence people like to say. Whalla!
It's not rocket science my boy!
Have a nice day.
I've got some conspiracy theory movies if you want them (on an other topic):2thumbsup:
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
877 Active Duty Generals or Equivalent.
How long do they last as a General... they have to climb the command ladder and if they don't pass each rung timely enough I take it they will never get to General... but even going up at each stage would take at least 15 years? So say they get to General at between 40 and 45... how many years left of service do they have 10/15 years?
After that say the majority do retire at 55 after 10 to 15 years as a general. I assume most of them will get to 80 or 85 as they will have access to good mediciene, plenty of money and have an above average lifestyle. That is 25-30 years as a retired general... compared with 10 to 15 years as an Active Duty one... so you can expect about 2 retired generals for every active one if not a larger ration.
So there should be 1500 or so retired Generals.
So 1 out of 250 have publically made their feelings known on the issue. I wonder how many more haven't?
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
877 Active Duty Generals or Equivalent.
How long do they last as a General... they have to climb the command ladder and if they don't pass each rung timely enough I take it they will never get to General... but even going up at each stage would take at least 15 years? So say they get to General at between 40 and 45... how many years left of service do they have 10/15 years?
15 years is a tad early. That is the normal range for promotion to Lietuant Colonel. Most officers that I know of that make General using do so after 20 years in the service. Not always since promotion to General is not dependent upon normal promotion schemes.
Quote:
After that say the majority do retire at 55 after 10 to 15 years as a general. I assume most of them will get to 80 or 85 as they will have access to good mediciene, plenty of money and have an above average lifestyle. That is 25-30 years as a retired general... compared with 10 to 15 years as an Active Duty one... so you can expect about 2 retired generals for every active one if not a larger ration.
This sounds about right though.
Quote:
So there should be 1500 or so retired Generals.
So 1 out of 250 have publically made their feelings known on the issue. I wonder how many more haven't?
Most I have come to beleive. Especially those who decide to stay the hell out of the political arenea.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
So, to sum up: Rumsfeld was exaggerating/misleading again?
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Yeah I'm getting all high 8s in the number of generals and admirals on active duty, I would still like to get an exact number on how many are retired, since the mandatory retirement age is soemthing like 62-64. I'm gonna go peruse some VA hospitals sites and see if I can find anything, I'm real curious if it really is thousands upon thousands.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“ Personally I say anything that doesnt physically harm them is ok. Covering the face with cellyphane and pouring water over them was quiet creative,” Yep, all these methods that was used by the Gestapo (S.D.) (included the dog’s one). If you don’t want to be compared with the Nazi, don’t use NAZI techniques.
Yep they sure did. So has every other country in the world at some point. The Nazi's also used handcuffs to arrest people, guess we shouldnt use those. The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.
Using what the nazi's did as a reason to compare the USA to evil is ridiculous. Sometimes coercion of the psychological kind is needed. Often times it has saved many peoples lives, we shouldn't be getting rid of these useful interrogation techniques because some bleeding heart liberal finds them to harsh for their thin skin. We've used them effectively for hundreds of years, not since now have they been deemned evil.:oops:
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
We've used them effectively for hundreds of years, not since now have they been deemned evil.:oops:
The same was said of slaves prior to 1865.
If you're going to critique someone else's line of argument, you better use pretty airtight ones yourself ~:)
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
The same was said of slaves prior to 1865.
If you're going to critique someone else's line of argument, you better use pretty airtight ones yourself ~:)
Oh but Hurin that has never stopped anyone in the Traven to include yourself. (nor me either)
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
“The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.”
Yep, and their loved their children too… :dizzy2: And their dogs, Heinrich was a talented pianist etc… We speak here of method of interrogation on people allegedly innocent… Now, if you want to create enemy, just do what you proposed. Big Tex, the Nazi killed 10% of the population of the village where I born, later. Did that stop my Grand-Father to sabotage their trains? No. It just was the biggest recruitment tools given by the Germans to the Partisans
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.”
Yep, and their loved their children too… :dizzy2: And their dogs, Heinrich was a talented pianist etc… We speak here of method of interrogation on people allegedly innocent… Now, if you want to create enemy, just do what you proposed. Big Tex, the Nazi killed 10% of the population of the village where I born, later. Did that stop my Grand-Father to sabotage their trains? No. It just was the biggest recruitment tools given by the Germans to the Partisans
You say your city was defestated? Sorry to hear that.:shame:
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
First, Rotorgun, good post on page one - well put.
Second, Redleg, seems I get overly sarcastic at times and this can lead to misconceptions about what I am actually attempting to say. So, sorry. In fact it seems we have similar responses to this issue - but, our approaches come from radically different points. Yet, still arrive at similar conclusions. BTW, I have a great deal of respect for anyone serving in the military and have stated on numerous occassions that my own service was a saving grace for me in many ways. As for my work with the MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex - as it is being called today), I've never felt any guilt about it. One feeds their family the best way they can, and there never was a conflict of conscience or hypocracy. Some of the projects, however, were no better than pork (though, even they are being used in different forms today - like some of the armor killing warheads). Note, I don't oppose war, if necessary to protect our (or an ally's) nation from a real threat. But, when we go to war it must not be on a whim, it must be thought out and argued openly (not behind closed doors). Iraq, was just wrong.
Now, basically, on topic. Rumsfeld, threw out 10 years of military planning on re-invading Iraq. He ignored his generals, and even publicly castigated Gen. Eric Shineski (former Chief of staff, Army) in 2003 for going before congress and saying that "several hundred-thousand troops" would be needed in the occupation of Iraq (what the administration still calls a war). Shineski, was the lone voice in the wilderness, all the other Generals were silent. For his forth rightness, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (then deputy secretary DoD) publicly mocked and shunned him. Tommy Franks, just did his "can do" and went about trying to do as best he could - knowing he did not have enough boots on the ground to secure Iraq after the last shots were fired - he did what he was suppose to do. Unfortunately, he didn't have the manpower to do it (we still don't).
As Lt. Gen. Newbold (retired) wrote about the decision for war, "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."
As noted in Times (24Apr06), this is ...."not over policy or budgets but the operation of the ongoing war."
Their premise(s):
1) the disbanding of the Iraqi military and Saddam's civilians running the infra-structure), by Rummy.
2) their (admin.) ignoring the advise of peolpe with battlefield experience.
3) their (") cavalier atttude about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners (Abu Graibh, Gitmo, etc.), and authorizing it.
4) Rummy's insistance on limiting the invasion force to insuffuceint numbers to secure the peace.
5) Rummy's abandonment of the Powell Doctrine: "attack rarely and then only with overwhelming force". Rummy wanted to prove this doctrine wrong, what he proved was that it was not an axiom - but, an absolute.
Even, Powell, last week said, "We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started and .... it got out of control."
Expect a few more men of honor to voice their opinions soon, some may even side with the administration and be able to show how we are really winning the war ..... er, occupation. We won the war, we are losing the occupation - that now seems destined for civil conflict, if not out and out war.
Still, even with all this, I doubt Rummy could ever bring himself to quit - or Bush to fire him. After all, Cheney and Rummy go back all the way to the Ford administration - and together have run the Pentagon for 12 of the last 32 years.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Second, Redleg, seems I get overly sarcastic at times and this can lead to misconceptions about what I am actually attempting to say. So, sorry. In fact it seems we have similar responses to this issue - but, our approaches come from radically different points. Yet, still arrive at similar conclusions.
Accepted, and I will apologize for the two biting personal retorts toward you in my response.
:embarassed:
I believe General Franks has begun to voice his opinion on the issue, and if I remember correctly it was not very favorable toward the adminstration. I will have to see if I can find it.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
You say your city was defestated” Village, village. The SS came, burned, raped and killed. It was on the list of the Martyrdom of France, long time ago.
My familly (part of) got no harm bcause they lived in a hameau (Hammel in English?), and my Grand-Father saw the ambush... Some after him were less lucky...
That is why, yes, we have to be very careful when we compare with the Nazi. They were really very specific, if not on some practise but on the goals. Their aim wasn’t to liberate people, their aim was to enslave and exterminate people.
Saying that, I stick with “if you don’t want to be compare with Nazi, don’t act like Nazi”.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You say your city was defestated” Village, village. The SS came, burned, raped and killed. It was on the list of the Martyrdom of France, long time ago.
My familly (part of) got no harm bcause they lived in a hameau (Hammel in English?), and my Grand-Father saw the ambush... Some after him were less lucky...
That is why, yes, we have to be very careful when we compare with the Nazi. They were really very specific, if not on some practise but on the goals. Their aim wasn’t to liberate people, their aim was to enslave and exterminate people.
Saying that, I stick with “if you don’t want to be compare with Nazi, don’t act like Nazi”.
Glad your grand-father is safe.:book:
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You say your city was defestated” Village, village. The SS came, burned, raped and killed. It was on the list of the Martyrdom of France, long time ago.
My familly (part of) got no harm bcause they lived in a hameau (Hammel in English?), and my Grand-Father saw the ambush... Some after him were less lucky...
That is why, yes, we have to be very careful when we compare with the Nazi. They were really very specific, if not on some practise but on the goals. Their aim wasn’t to liberate people, their aim was to enslave and exterminate people.
Saying that, I stick with “if you don’t want to be compare with Nazi, don’t act like Nazi”.
Comparing anyone to nazi's is wrong. The nazi's used physical torcher, not so much the psycological torchers. Those technique's leave no physical harm and in war time could save untold thousands. I dont think they should be used as the norm, but only in the very neccessary situations were speed is needed. Using how the Nazi's acted as a mean for your comparisons casts a pretty large net, one I'm absolutely certain you've been caught in also.
It's horrible that your village was decimated by the Nazi's. But I find it suprising that if they hurt you so much that you compare the USA to them. You of all people should know the differences. If you don't want your insults attacked in such a way, dont compare countries to nazi's.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
“But I find it suprising that if they hurt you so much that you compare the USA to them” No. I don’t compare the US with the Nazi. What I said is there is a danger, if you use the same methods, to be compared with the Nazi. It give to your enemy a good weapon. Something else: the British didn’t use tortures during WW”. MI5 said that under tortures (or extreme interrogation techniques) every body talk. The only problem is you don’t know if it is true.
I experimented a long pain. Nothing compared to torture. Believe me I would have denounced all the Yellow Page books to stop it…
The French Resistance Hero, Pierre Brossolette preferred to jump from the 3rd floor (and with him 2 SS) instead to be tortured. What you thing as benign because it is no physically harming is not. Just try to stop to sleep during two days. And imagine doing so under fear.
One of the favourite tortures of the Japanese on the allies prisoners forced to build the railways (Kwai River) was to oblige them to lift a heavy stone over their head, and to slap them when they started to fail. According to your definition, it isn’t torture. Except in extreme cases the prisoners wasn’t harm. The survivors didn’t get permanent harm. However, I think it was torture.
Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed
http://www.armytimes.com/static.php?f=view.php
A new Army Times poll has 64.3% wanting him out.
Re: Sv: Rumsfeld gets Bashed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulawayo
Rotorgun:
Does
this article sum up your information well?
I am not sure, but I think so.
I am not sure if this is a double post as I sent out a reply once.(I might have clicked the wrong confounded icon) Thanks for responding with such an article. I think it clearly sheds new light on my premise that the "War on Terror" is not being fought for the reasons many are being led to believe. As for an American version of the "Pax Romana", I would think that it would apply in a sense, considering the ramifications of the article and my previously mentioned Strategic Defence Planning Guide. It is quite obviuos that the plans are quite similar.
As to the idea that the UK and US are making a grab for the dwindling oil reserves, It could be true if the statistics are accurate in the article. Another possibility is that the large oil consortiums and international finance organizations involved want to monopolize the fast growing Asian oil market. The Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussien in Iraq, and the Islamic extremist government of Iran all stand in the way of such an economic venture. While I appluade the downfall of all such dictatorial regimes, I hardly think it worth the price of a Gotterdamerung of biblical proportions in order to achieve it. As it has been said: "Two wrongs don't make a right."
Speaking of the idea that the attacks of 911 were deliberately allowed to succeed, I certainly hope that it is not the case. I cannot believe that an American administration would allow such an attack on their population to occur just to justify an offensive in the Persian Gulf. If such a thing were ever proved, God help these people, for there will be a hanging in Washington D.C. I know that many believe that F.D.R. may have knowingly allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor without sending a proper warning to the Commanders there to shock isolationist Americans into action during WWII. Even if true, this was a military target, not the World Trade Center. To allow the deaths of over 3000 civilians on your soil just to start a war would be the epitome of criminality. I hope that the article is wrong.
Thanks again for your thoughtfulness in posting this site for us. I am glad that there are many people in the Org. that are first class thinkers who can make an intelligent arguement when discussing something that is so volatile.
God save us all from corporate greed.
PS edit: I apologize Kafir, I must have missed your reference to the PNAC. It was very astute of you to bring it up. INteresting list of members, don't you think?
