http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191783,00.html
Six former generals speak out against Rumsfeld. In the article.:book:
Printable View
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,191783,00.html
Six former generals speak out against Rumsfeld. In the article.:book:
And those are just the Generals. Rumsfield is an incompetant butthole. But I bet he has a real nice house.
Yep, Rummy is history. He may stay to the end of the Bush term, but his effectiveness with anything involving the military is mute. By some (military personell) accounts as many as 75% of the senior officers serving think Rummy is incompetent, arrogant (without cause), and is incapable of leadership (except through or by coercive means) - and these are the ones that like him. The other 25% think he's a dick. :laugh4:
It's gonna be a lot of work, Swift-boating six generals. Better get the Five Star Veterans for Truth fired up.
Kinda miss the point - we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place.
Oh, oh I know...Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Were there though, so there's little point in arguing over why we got there till we've fixed the place.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Maybe, but it might be wise to not have the guy responsible for the US being there in a position of power anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Can anyone with more knowledge of the US military comment on Rumsfeld's statements that there are 'thousand and thousands' of generals and admirals in the US military? That seems very high to me. He made the comment to minimize the criticism of him. He said:
"The fact that two or three or four retired people have different views, I respect their views," he said. "But obviously if, out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."
Now, he certainly minimized the number of people criticizing him-- it wasn't two or three or four but at least six senior figures publically denounced him (those in uniform, of course, can't speak out against him very forcefully). But did he exaggerate the number of generals/admirals too? Just curious.
If the figure includes retired generals and admirals, it probably isn't too far off of thousands, maybe even ten thousand.
Literally thousands of thousands (millions) is quite high. :help:
Thousands and thousands seem high for active generals and admirals. More then likely he was including retired generals. Or he could have included the coast guard and national guard :laugh4: .
It still wouldn't be anywhere near thousands. What, does he think each company has its own general?
I think he is referring to not only current retiress and active duty in judgement of him, but likely all retiress and active duty EVER in the history of the US who sat in judgement of ALL SODs in the history of the US. That may not be how it came out, and maybe there are americans stupid enough to think that we have 1000s of Generals and Admirals alive right now, but it simply isn't the case.
He likely meant presidents dont fire SODs everytime a few generals complain. But even the accuracy of that statement could be debated, and you also have to consider that its typically bad protocol for people still serving to engage in the type of finger pointing towards a superior, so assuming that because active duty officers arent complaining means they love him is assuming wrong, maybe they just don't want to get MacArthured.
But Don't expect him to get fired, that would imply that someone made an error, and errors arent made in this administration. It's better to stay the course on an bad decision than be a terrible flip flopper and change direction a bit. RUMMY 4 EVER
Wesley Clark has joined the call for Rumsfeld to resign.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4913414.stm
US Active Duty General Offiers = about 800
http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/do...32/sec526.html
Retirees = several thousand.
Probably unhelpful. Since he was a Democratic candidate, the White House can easily characterise the comments as partisan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I was going to point - each branch of service has over 200 General officers on active duty. Add the National Guard and Reserve Generals (about another 200) and you get real close to 1000 flagged ranked officers. But it seems you already found the link that shows it a little better.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
By one report I read, there are 16 Field rank officers for every hundred troops (or maybe that is just officers in general). The report denoted that most officers are just sorta hanging out and playing politics - and that the ratio of officers (today) serving in a combat situation is minimal (especially for Westys - they go there get the ticket punched for having been and get reassigned to a safe area to play politico). It seems about right though. In 'nam the Westy's that got put on the line served about 4 months on average, the Annapolis boys (marines) spent 6 months and the OCS guys spent their tours there (or died there).
Still, if the arguement is if 6 qualified generals have a beef about the military versus the war? Well, consider that one Lt. Gen. (3 stars) gave it up - the youngest Lt. Gen. in 50 years - to protest the handeling of the war.
Don't you get it? It ain't about them - these are men of the highest honor - it is about the way the war was, is and has been conducted. It is about a return to the Vietnam style of warfare where the civilians blame the military for not being able to carry out their brilliant plans. It is, "Sure there have been thousands of tactical errors (those of the troops and their commanders), but the strategy (Bushy's) is still sound". Condi Rice.
What amazes me is that we haven't had a coup d'etat. I mean, it's the military that botched Rummy's, Wolfowitz's, Cheney's, and Bushy's (well, actually I doubt he had a clue ... was to busy praying that he was right) plan. It is fortunate for Bush that officers take an oath to the presidency - where as enlisted men take an oath to the country. Were it reversed, maybe they would act .... though I doubt it, after all the only ones with balls quit or retired. :balloon2:
LOL you might want to read the oaths that enlisted and officers actually take and sign. Here to help you out since you it seems you have forgotten what the oaths actually state. (you actually got it reversed. LOL) :oops: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
Enlisted oath
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Officer Commission Oath
I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
You might want to stay away from those liberial blogs.
So, what you are saying Red is that the officer corp has broken its oath by supporting Bush. No?
so, Officers accept the duty of Congress over the president? That being the people (nation) over a man? While the enlisted men swear an allegiance to a man - like the nazis did to Hitler.
Sorry, Red, your wrong. In thinking i got it wrong. The officers have, if they are not bound to a president, but to the nation? Then why are they so acquiescent to? Why haven't they stood up for their beliefs, allowed the most qualified to be retired or fired? Been rubber stamps to a bunch of wimps that are willing to send others sons to die but not their own? What is wrong with this picture?
That you are right> I am wrong, somehow makes you right? You jest, yes?
Or, are you so entrenched in the idea that if you can prove me wrong on one subject that all my perceptions are wrong, also?
Do you personally agree with all of Rummy's concepts, policies (torure is OK. 100,000 men can do what it took 350,000 men to do before), etc. Or, are you simply intent on proving me wrong?
I often invert, or revert things - am old and slow, and some times forgetful - but, somethings i do not forget. Like how we lost the last war - Vietnam, and neither do most of the generals now serving. It is just that some still want to make that next star - regardless od the consequences to the nation. The ball-less twits.
So, oh gosh - Kafir got the codes reversed - he bad?
"I have every confidence in the abitilies and performance of Secretary Rumsfeld , I am very pleased with his achievements in this war on terror , he is doing one hell of a job and I look forward to his continued efforts in his current position"---Osama B .:thumbsup:
No, not at all. Has President Bush issued them an illegal order? Has President Bush violated the Constitution? Has President Bush issued some stupid decision - Yes. Notice the difference between the two questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
So the point is that your initial comment was wrong, however I see your now guilty of attempting to spin your way out of the error. Nice so your attempting to compare American soldiers to the SS. Nice - maybe you should stop while your behind. Since you just compared yourself to being a Nazi (you being the former enlisted soldier.)Quote:
so, Officers accept the duty of Congress over the president? That being the people (nation) over a man? While the enlisted men swear an allegiance to a man - like the nazis did to Hitler.
Oh you are very much wrong in our initial post - Officers are bound to the nation just like the enlisted in their oath. Your attempting to spin something out of the oath that is not there - when the fault lies in human failure, or the desire of individuals to achieve personal gain over everything else. (Edit: for spelling)Quote:
Sorry, Red, your wrong. In thinking i got it wrong. The officers have, if they are not bound to a president, but to the nation? Then why are they so acquiescent to? Why haven't they stood up for their beliefs, allowed the most qualified to be retired or fired? Been rubber stamps to a bunch of wimps that are willing to send others sons to die but not their own? What is wrong with this picture?
Not at all - didn't say I was right - only that you are wrong, providing the actual oaths when doing so. Notice the difference there. To claim I am right without proper material would only be opinion. Providing the actual oaths shows the fact of what the oaths actually state.Quote:
That you are right> I am wrong, somehow makes you right? You jest, yes?
Nope only showing you that the oaths state something else then what you claimed - attempting to spin things beyond that is just spin. The failure on this issue is yours not mine.Quote:
Or, are you so entrenched in the idea that if you can prove me wrong on one subject that all my perceptions are wrong, also?
Your preception is at fault when you compare US soldiers to nazi's, maybe your still upset with yourself for being a hypocrit - working in the military industrial complex if my memory serves me correctly, working for the man and the system that you have issues with to the point that it has clouded your preception of what it means to be a soldier. Or just maybe your still upset with your own experience in the military, the lack of public support for the soldiers who were only doing their duty?
Go back and read my previous posts - you can discover it for yourself. But in short I didn't think the invasion was well planned out, nor have I stated that torture is ok. However go back and read for yourself.Quote:
Do you personally agree with all of Rummy's concepts, policies (torure is OK. 100,000 men can do what it took 350,000 men to do before), etc. Or, are you simply intent on proving me wrong?
Now that is the only valid point - and it has absolutely nothing to do with the initial post nor the reference to the oaths that you initially made. If you stuck with that one - I would of agreed completely - however that is not what you did.Quote:
I often invert, or revert things - am old and slow, and some times forgetful - but, somethings i do not forget. Like how we lost the last war - Vietnam, and neither do most of the generals now serving. It is just that some still want to make that next star - regardless od the consequences to the nation. The ball-less twits.
It seems you have also forgotten a lesson about Vietnam. Expousing your hate for the soldiers who are doing what they believe is their duty to the nation by calling them a bunch of nazis. It seems that it isn't just the military that has forgotten several crucial lessons from Vietnam.
Yes indeed - Kafir got the oaths reversed. That was the point. I notice that you attempted to spin your incorrect reponse even farther, making yourself looking even worse. So do you believe that while serving in the military that your service was equilevent with being a Nazi trooper? Do you call your relatives Nazi's for serving in the military?Quote:
So, oh gosh - Kafir got the codes reversed - he bad?
Your post here reminds me of the attempt at setting people up to be called facists that you did a while back, remember calling my ancestors a bunch of facists there Kafir. Well it seems your up to the same poor logic here, calling servicemen and women a bunch of nazi's.
The officers arent under the command of the congress (luckily, would be a horrid place if congress had control of the army). They are commanded by their supperiors, the end of the chain is the Commander in Cheif (the president). The president is a servent of the people. As for the enlisted man you may want to read that more carefully, you see here, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the enlisted man swears to uphold the constitution against any enemy. Which is first and foremost before serving his superior (the president). Come on comparing a US soldier to a nazi stormtrooper is bogus. Seriously you may want to rethink your wording on that.Quote:
Originally posted KafirChobee
so, Officers accept the duty of Congress over the president? That being the people (nation) over a man? While the enlisted men swear an allegiance to a man - like the nazis did to Hitler.
Depends on what your definition of torture is quite honestly. Alot of those liberals out there say sleep depervation is torture. Personally I say anything that doesnt physically harm them is ok. Covering the face with cellyphane and pouring water over them was quiet creative, I sure hope the CIA will continue to use that technique.Quote:
Rummy's concepts, policies (torure is OK
To those of you complaining that Rumsfeld is trying to minimize and crack down on the officers criticizing him, you might want to note that it is illegal for them to criticize a superior. Also there arent really, "retired" officers/generals, since any of them could be called back to active duty at any point in the future. Regardless of whether they resigned or age, only exception being the dishonorably discharged. So having a non-active general questioning a superior is a bad idea, it insites other to question their superiors and that is not how the an army should work.
I'd have to agree with Redleg, Kafir you may want to take it easy on the liberal blogs.
And Red is off!:sweatdrop:
I didn't mean it in a bad way, please don't hurt me!:embarassed:
Not at all - I found his response very amusing and telling at the same time. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon
“ 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.
Questioning people when they are obviously wrong is a bad idea?Quote:
So having a non-active general questioning a superior is a bad idea, it insites other to question their superiors and that is not how the an army should work.
I didn't notice this before - until another spotted it - but Jimbob is right - a good commander allows his subordinates to question the validity of his order up to a point. This point often being the decision making point for that order. I sat in many orders briefs as a subordinate commander where I was expect by my commander to ask questions concerning the order, to get clarifications about what was expect of my command, and to point out the weakness in the order that were not included in the brief. The point being is that questioning the orders were expected, just like executing the orders was expected after the discussion and decision was made. A poor commander does not listen to his subordinates when they spot errors in the order.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
Retired Generals are often involved in the Military Complex after their service, who best to question the President and Rumsfield about their decisions concerning the military? Most of these men served in commands of a division or higher which often makes thier comments relative to what is happening.
I detest the retire generals who do this questioning for political gain - but admire the few who are doing it out of legimate concern for the men and women in uniform.
Alrighty then, If ya'll don't mind an old soldier, who is still in the service of his country, wading in here for a few words.
1. It is the President's descision on who to hire and fire in his cabinet. If a he did that every time that someone politically, or personally attacked one of his cabinet members, he might as well install a revolving door to the breifing room. I am a little disappointed with those Generals that didn't speak up earlier.
2. While I disagree with the timing of this war politically, it is a fact that we are in it. We might as well try to win it, or pack up and go home. I guess what bothers me about Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and the whole lot of them, is the utter hypocrisy of their policies. This is not a war of liberation, a search for WMDs, a counterattack on the Terrorists or any other such causes. These where merely the pretenses (which kept changing almost weekly leading up to the war) for invasion. The Greeks and Romans were masters of this way of building political support for their wars as well. Ring a bell?
3. The primary reasons for this war IMH military opinion are twofold:
a. First, it is an extension of the policies recommended to the former President Bush in the 1990's by none other than the former Secratary of Defense, DicK Cheney, and his humble assistant, Paul Wolfowitz; now a the CEO of the World Bank and a major player in international finance for such things as...oh I don't know - Oil company reasearch and development loans. They both recommended that the United States do whatever it must to prevent the rise of a future competitor anywhere after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is all outlined in the Strategic Planning Guide that was issued to many key players during that administration. (It can be found online) The plan to move on the Gulf region is clearly outlined there. Controlling the oil reserves in this region were mentioned as a means of keeping the lid on the Saudi's dominance of the oil market at the time.
b. Secondly, (please bear with me) a plan has been in motion for some years now to put a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf through Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Two of the key players involved were Cheveron Corporation, former workplace of, guess who, Condaleza Rice and, who'd have known, Halliburton. (Dick Cheney should have resigned from the Vice Presidency for this) The only problem was that International financiers, of which one was the World Bank, would not agree to finance the loans due to the presence of the Taliban, and a certain religous fanatic, one Osama Bin Laden. Hmmmm....I guess there was a little problem in Ol'e Bactria? This leads me to my second point. If I were going to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, what more excuse would I need than Osama Bin Laden's attack of the World Trade Center? Hence one invasion of Afghanistan. But wait, there's more.
You guys are all real smart strategists aren't you? If I wanted to keep my little Pipleline construction project hopes from counterattack by my rivals, what better way than a nice little diversion? What better deversion than a War in Iraq? While this was never the said intention of our going there, it certainly has become a reality. Our forces are now "drawing the Terorist attacks away from the United States" says Rumsfeld. Well of course! It stands to reason that they are no longer a threat to my plans in Afghanistan either! Very cunning. I am impressed!
4. What burns me is not that we went to war there. It is that these arrogant men, who will never go on patrol in Iraq, or have to worry about an IED, or whose children will likely never serve, have the nerve to try and play on my sympathies as an American like the strings of a Guitar! I now feel as Hamlet felt as he was played upon by Rosencrans and Guildenstern. If you want to play RTW for real in Iraq, than have the guts to tell the American people, and the fine soldiers, who have to take the brunt of your decisions, the truth. This is a war of aggression, plain and simple. No suit and tie in Washington, or London could convince me otherwise. I know, I am a soldier and have spoken to those who have been there! While a great deal of winning the hearts and minds is going well, we are losing because we do not have enough soldiers present to keep it secure. The Iraqis are not ready,and won't be for sometime! We basically are just going to have to wait it out until they are, or sit back and divide up Iraq into three seperate contries, and then were would you be? That is another thing that Rumsfeld and crew didn't plan for, and still haven't come to grips with. The American people are dreaming if they really believe that we'll be out of there in just a few years. What do they think we are doing there? Only what they are being spoon-fed by this administration.
Sorry, I went on way too long about this, and it is all I am going to say about it. It may be sweet to die for one's counntry, not for a lie.
PS: I love my country, and would be glad to give my life in her defense.
But this.....I'd have to think about it. Rumsfeld, Cheney, President Bush, read my signature quote. Onasander was a wise man.
Well, it seems we find an other thing in common. We have quite a few (if not all) of the same views.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
EDIT: Now these are views, not conspiracy theories ~;)
While off-topic, I find you theory... unlikely. But that's just me. :inquisitive:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
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?
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:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
This sounds about right though.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.
Most I have come to beleive. Especially those who decide to stay the hell out of the political arenea.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?
So, to sum up: Rumsfeld was exaggerating/misleading again?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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:
The same was said of slaves prior to 1865.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
“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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
Accepted, and I will apologize for the two biting personal retorts toward you in my response.Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
: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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.
“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.
http://www.armytimes.com/static.php?f=view.php
A new Army Times poll has 64.3% wanting him out.
Rotorgun:
Does this article sum up your information well?
I am not sure, but I think so.
Good article, Bulawayo. :balloon2: I mentioned "PNAC" some time back. It was basically ignored.
Other members: Chairmen; Wm. Kristol, Thos. Donnelly, Lewis (Scooter) Libby
Members; Peter Rodman (Asst. Sec. of Def. for Int'l Sec.), Dov S. Zackheim (Comptroller in DoD), Robert B. Zoellick (Deputy Sec. of State), John R. Bolton (US Ambassador to UN), Randy Schueneman (was President of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", an organization funded by defense and security contractors - the committee included other PNAC members), Stephen Cambone (UnderSecretary of Defense for Intelligence), and R. James Woolsey (former CIA Director, now VP at Booz Allen Hamilton - one of the largest Iraq contractors). This but to name a few. The founders and chairmen (btw) for PNAC were Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld (beginning in 1992).
The agenda was - justifying an invasion of Iraq. It was a pre-drawn conclusion that it would occur after the Supreme Court elected GW Bush President (but, that's another story).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulawayo
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?
Sorry to be a little late out of the barn with these. Here are some sites that have information concerning this ongoing debate over the morality of the current Anglo/American strategy in SW Asia. While off topic concerning Rumsfeld's bashing, I think that they might be of interest to the inquiring minds among us. They are related in some ways to the thread.
http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEP...SAZERB/412.htm
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html
I hope these are helpful in helping one to make an informed decision. I think that all will see just how much is at stake for the key players. I also read a great book, Crude Politics, which exposes the truth about how the Bush administration's oil cronny buddies have manipulated the polocies and strategies taken in Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban-all because of a desire to build a pipeline there to dominate the Asian oil market with Caspian Sea oil.
Gah! Rotorgun! Gah! Rotorgun unfair to us ranters, Rototgun have facts. Gah!
Good post. Not light reading, however. Or, for the faint hearted that intend to support a policy regardless of the evidence provided by others (those outside the FOX news netquirk, that is).
Scary stuff that. Do you really believe that oilmen (Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Rice - well, Rice is as much of a man as she can be) would really take their nation to war to profit a few? Oh, never mind .... the answer is in the question. :shrug:
Regardless, a well thought out post (versus mine of course),
Thank you. I know it was a little off the thread topic, but it is all part and parcel of "Rumsfeld gets bashed, the complete story" IMHO. Seriously, the main reasons that Herr Rumsfeld needs to be dethroned are that he is nothing more than the sycophant of the Republican party and has always been. He has put the wishes of his Republican masters before the needs of the soldiers that he commands. That is a cardinal sin in the playbook of an old sodier like me. In my view, he has lost the confidence of the Army (63.4% according to a recent Army times poll), and the American people as well. As for my personal opinion of him, he is a complete hypocrite that I would never willingly follow to a rock fight. Despite that, I will pray for his rotten soul, so that my poor consciense can get some relief. Rummy dear....Read my signature text!Quote:
Originally Posted by KafirChobee
http://www.voltairenet.org/article136827.html
i didnt want to start another thread but felt the images on this page needed to be seen. when discussing how many coalition soldiers died, etc. one tends to forget the other casualties.
What this seems to be ignoring on the surface is that AQ launched an attack into the Towers.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
One could easily believe this information to be completely correct if they are willing to accept that the Administration helped to plan the attack on the Towers, or at best knew it was going to happen and decided not to act.
Finally if this information is true, how does one explain that no-one in congress has attempted to impeach the president for such activity?
That's what the one article from the UK source claims, that they deliberately ignored the warning signs of a coming attack. No, I haven't forgot that AQ attacked us. The fact is that how the Bush administration reacted to the attack was to let the Afghan Warlords deal with the Taliban with limited support from our special forces. I am implying that Osama and crew were really in no danger of being captured, as everyone knows that there were many Al Quieda sympathizers in the ranks of the Warlords. If it wasn't for Colin Powell insisting that we respond in Afghanistan, the Bush administration wouldn't have even bothered to send what forces it did, being content to let the Afghans do all the fighting. At the first meeting, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were already trying to make the case for Iraq............Amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I am not ready to make that assertion, but the thought has crossed my mind. I can only pray that is not the case, but it is awfully strange when one considers the fact that one of Osama Bin Laden's relatives was actually visiting at the White house just a few days before the attack (brought to light in Farenhiet 911 by Micheal Moore). It is also a fact that the only plane allowed to fly in the days immediately following the attack was a Suadi Plane with 13 Suadi nationals, of which some were Bin Ladenfamily members. They all beat feet out of the US as fast as they could. The FBI was not allowed to detain any of them for questioning. Now, don't you think that is rather odd? This is a documenetd fact.Quote:
One could easily believe this information to be completely correct if they are willing to accept that the Administration helped to plan the attack on the Towers, or at best knew it was going to happen and decided not to act.
I have no idea. Perhaps they don't know. Perhaps, if they do, they really can't believe it. Heck, even I don't want to. There are many Senators and Congessmen that voted for allowing the President to carry on the way he has. Perhaps they feel that there is too much blame to be cast their way as well. Maybe I should send these articles to some of them. I wonder what could be made of such information. I am not some kind of conspiracy nut, but does it really make sense to attack Iraq when the people that directly attacked us are still breathing? It would be like the US attacking Mexico one week after Pearl Harbor by making some claim that they were somehow harboring Japanese insurgents without any real proof. Rumsfeld deserves to be fired just for advising such an action to begin with. Rest assured, he and Vice President Cheney both had a hard on for Iraq from the beginning. If I had my way, I would fire the whole lot of them.Quote:
Finally if this information is true, how does one explain that no-one in congress has attempted to impeach the president for such activity?
Making the case for Iraq is different then the assertion that the attack into Afganstan was for the pipeline. Again address the issue as it relates to your initial point - not the attempt at distraction by pointing to Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
So are you attempting in one bold stroke to ignore the ability and limitations of the United States to transport divisions into a mountianous area with limited airstrips? Are you attempting to ignore the historical fact that the only successful invasions by outside forces into Afganstan have been done with forces from within Afganstan?
The operation into Afganstan has many failures - one being not sticking with it until fruitution of the mission goals, and the other being sending forces needed for this operation to another. However neither of these failures support the initial claim of it was about the pipeline.
Are you also implying that the 101st, 82nd, and 10th Mountain did not also particpate in Afganstan?
Address those areas that apply to the pipeline conspricy that you are bringing forward. So far it doesn't survive contact with reality.
To completely buy into the theory that you are advocating here - one must assume that the administration at best allowed the attack to happen, or at worst planned and assisted in the attack. No other possiblity exists that would explain your initial comment and the premise of the book Crude Politics as you pointed out in your opening line in our little exchange.Quote:
I am not ready to make that assertion, but the thought has crossed my mind. I can only pray that is not the case, but it is awfully strange when one considers the fact that one of Osama Bin Laden's relatives was actually visiting at the White house just a few days before the attack (brought to light in Farenhiet 911 by Micheal Moore). It is also a fact that the only plane allowed to fly in the days immediately following the attack was a Suadi Plane with 13 Suadi nationals, of which some were Bin Ladenfamily members. They all beat feet out of the US as fast as they could. The FBI was not allowed to detain any of them for questioning. Now, don't you think that is rather odd? This is a documenetd fact.
also read a great book, Crude Politics, which exposes the truth about how the Bush administration's oil cronny buddies have manipulated the polocies and strategies taken in Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban-all because of a desire to build a pipeline there to dominate the Asian oil market with Caspian Sea oil.
Congress can not bring impeachment charges upon the president because there is no absolute proof that he or his adminstration was involved in the alledged wrong doing. Circumstancial evidence is just that. Conspricy theories always have a grain of truth in order to build their attempts at being valid, however it does not bear out as truth at this time. Maybe in some distant or near distant future one of the individuals involved in such a conspricy will have a moment of clarity and confess to such activities, but until then its only a conspricay theory with no evidence to truely support it.Quote:
I have no idea. Perhaps they don't know. Perhaps, if they do, they really can't believe it. Heck, even I don't want to. There are many Senators and Congessmen that voted for allowing the President to carry on the way he has. Perhaps they feel that there is too much blame to be cast their way as well. Maybe I should send these articles to some of them. I wonder what could be made of such information. I am not some kind of conspiracy nut, but does it really make sense to attack Iraq when the people that directly attacked us are still breathing? It would be like the US attacking Mexico one week after Pearl Harbor by making some claim that they were somehow harboring Japanese insurgents without any real proof.
Agreed Rumsfeld should be fired, and Cheney should be asked to resign, but that is different then your initial statements in our exchange.Quote:
Rumsfeld deserves to be fired just for advising such an action to begin with. Rest assured, he and Vice President Cheney both had a hard on for Iraq from the beginning. If I had my way, I would fire the whole lot of them.
Rumsfeld gets bashed again today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12632127/
Yes indeed, and this time it wasn't just from the liberal left. One of the people who fired out some telling questions was Ray McGovern, a CIA employee who made quite a scene by throwing Secretary Rumsfeld's own words back at him. It was an interesting tap dance by the "honorable" Mr. Rumsfeld. I think that he should take some lessons, because he was a bit out of step.
@ Redleg, I would like to answer your reply of 20060502, but I shall have to start a new thread. It is quite a bit off the subject I'm sure that you would agree. So, unless anyone objects, I'll talk to you about the subject of Ahganistan and Iraq there.
CNN's 360 With Anderson Cooper just ran a great piece on this, when the former CIA officer confronts Rumsfeld. There are some great moments. At one point, Rumsfeld denies he ever said the evidence of Zarqawi's links to Saddam Hussein were 'bulletproof', but CNN then shows Rumsfeld saying precisely that.
The video of the actual confrontation is also at the website listed above ( http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS....ap/index.html , click on 'Donald Rumsfeld answers tough questions, in the green box to the center right of the screen), although unfortunately not the fact checks that show that Rumsfeld was flat out lying.
For those of you who can't watch, the former CIA officer catches Rumsfeld in two misleading statements, gives him a question that he cannot answer, and points out Rumsfeld's final answer is a total non sequitur.
The transcript of the CIA analyst's conversation on CNN, in which he points out that all the facts contradict Rumsfeld, is available on CNN's site here: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...ern/index.html
Enjoy.
I don't know what your position on this was. If you had agreed with the invasion of Iraq before, do you now agree with France, Germany, Russia and everyone else who were against the war? :hide:Quote:
Originally Posted by BigTex