Disagree With Me, and You're Appeasing Fascism

According to Donald Rumsfeld, people who criticise the current administration's Iraq policies are appeasing a "new type of fascism." Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey. But wait, there's more:

In some unusually blunt terms, Rumsfeld says the administration's detractors suffer from "moral and intellectual confusion" about global security threats and he says they lack the courage to fight back.

Unfortunately for the Backroom, I think everyone in here has been critical of at least some small part of the conduct of the Iraq war. I hate to say it, but we're all fascist appeasers. You heard it here first.

Damn, and I was just getting used to "leftist"... :sweatdrop:

Big Don R. outdid you Divinus Arma... :laugh3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

According to Donald Rumsfeld, people who criticise the current administration's Iraq policies are appeasing a "new type of fascism." Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey. But wait, there's more:

In some unusually blunt terms, Rumsfeld says the administration's detractors suffer from "moral and intellectual confusion" about global security threats and he says they lack the courage to fight back.

Unfortunately for the Backroom, I think everyone in here has been critical of at least some small part of the conduct of the Iraq war. I hate to say it, but we're all fascist appeasers. You heard it here first.

---

It must be that 25% German and 50% Italian in my blood. I just can't help myself.

yuk yuk. You guys just dont get it. Talk about taking it out of context. There is nothing wrong with discussing policy, but have an alternative. Abandoning Iraq to the wolves will make it a terrorist playground. For now, it acts as a roach motel. The islamofascists go there to die.

For now, it acts as a roach motel. The islamofascists go there to die.

Really , I thought the Pentagon assesment was that they were going there , learning on the job terrorism and then moving on to bring terrorism to other places .
I thought it was mainly ordinary Iraqis that were getting killed , not the Islamofascists ,but hey maybe I am wrong and ever increasing monthly totals of civilians getting blown apart , kidnapped and murdered in all sorts of interesting ways are not really locals , they are IslamoFascists on holiday:dizzy2:
You guys just dont get it.
You don't get it at all Divinus , you just repeat the same old worn out catchphrases.:no:

Any copy of his whole speech, and not the reporter-summarized version?

Its the article that says critics of policies- it appears, from the brief quotes, than D Rumsfield is actually talking about those who want to pull out and appease the terrorists.

Crazed Rabbit

See, even if this 'roach motel' theory has grounds in reality, I wonder about the morality of bringing a war to a nation that had nothing to do w/ terrorism, and choosing their civilians to die, rather than the possiblity of ours dying...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Any copy of his whole speech, and not the reporter-summarized version?

Its the article that says critics of policies- it appears, from the brief quotes, than D Rumsfield is actually talking about those who want to pull out and appease the terrorists.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Yeah, a full text would be alot more useful than brief snippets. Heck, the video link in the story (which I watched hoping to see some context) doesnt even contain the quotes they used in the article. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

See, even if this 'roach motel' theory has grounds in reality, I wonder about the morality of bringing a war to a nation that had nothing to do w/ terrorism, and choosing their civilians to die, rather than the possiblity of ours dying...

---

Hey, it's the War on Terror. When they kill civilians they're responsible. And if our actions against terror cause civilian deaths the terrorists are still responsible. All the better if it's not even our civilians dying. We can't lose!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

See, even if this 'roach motel' theory has grounds in reality, I wonder about the morality of bringing a war to a nation that had nothing to do w/ terrorism, and choosing their civilians to die, rather than the possiblity of ours dying...

---

That was not the initial intent, but it is the current reality.

I hear the Backroom saying, "More, give us more Holwin' Don Rumsfeld!" Your wish is my command. The full text of his speech. (In fairness, I have no idea if this is an accurate transcript, a prepared release by the DoD (those are known to vary from the actual speech given) or what. But it appears to be the speech referenced, so it's better than nothing.)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Tom [American Legion Commander Tom Bock], I understand that your son is flying a Chinook in Iraq -- following in his dad’s proud tradition of military service. Our country is deeply grateful to him -- and to all of you who have children or relatives serving in our nation’s military.

They are in our thoughts and prayers. Please tell them we appreciate all they do for our country.

I thank each of you for the love and support you provide for our troops every day.

No one is more proud of those young people than their Commander-in-Chief. I know that President Bush is looking forward to being with you on Thursday.

We are truly fortunate to have a leader of resolve at a time of war. Through all the challenges, he remains the same man who stood atop the rubble of lower Manhattan, with a bullhorn, vowing to fight back; the leader who told a grieving nation that we will never forget what was lost; and the determined President who works every day to fulfill his vow to bring the enemy to justice or to bring justice to the enemy.

Our nation is so fortunate to have the American Legion standing up for all those who are serving our country in this time of testing.

About a year ago, I participated in the dedication of the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. And when I looked out into the audience, I could see a great many American Legion caps. It was a reminder of the millions who sacrificed for our country, so many of whom did not come home.

And it was also a reminder of all that American Legionnaires do to for our servicemen and women. Indeed, through nearly nine decades of service, the American Legion continues to find new ways and to undertake new initiatives to embody their motto: “For God and Country.”

The Department of Defense is proud to be a partner with you in the “Heroes to Hometowns” program, which is helping severely wounded veterans with job searches, their homes, and other activities to aid the transition to civilian life. Your partnership with the “The America Supports You” campaign helps communities, organizations, and individuals across this nation express their appreciation to our troops, and to their families.

And, on a personal note, I commend the American Legion for its sponsorship of the Boy Scouts. I know there are some places where Boy Scouts are a subject of scorn.

Well, I was a proud Cub Scout, then a Boy Scout; then an Explorer Scout; an Eagle Scout; and, in 1975, a Distinguished Eagle Scout. The Scouts represent some of the best qualities in our great country -- and they certainly deserve our support!

The American Legion has achieved a great deal for our country since its founding in the months following World War I, when those folks came together in a hotel in Europe to find a way to help some of their fellow veterans who would be coming home soon.

Indeed, that year -- 1919 -- turned out to be one of those pivotal junctures in modern history -- with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of the League of Nations -- a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete.

Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate discourse and thinking in the west.

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be appeased, then the carnage and destruction of then-recent memory of World War I might be avoided. It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis -- the rise of fascism and Nazism -- were ridiculed and ignored.

Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated -- or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace -- even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear.

It was, as Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. Senator’s reaction in September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”

Think of that!

I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.

Today, another enemy -- a different kind of enemy -- has also made clear its intentions -- in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.

We need to face the following questions:

# With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?

# Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

# Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?

# And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world’s trouble?

These are central questions of our time. And we must face them.

We hear everyday of new plans, new efforts, to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot recently discovered that would have killed hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of innocent men, women, and children on planes coming from Britain to the United States should have demonstrated to all that the enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.

But this is still -- in 2006 -- not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

We find ourselves in a strange time:

When a database search of America’s leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who was punished for misconduct, than mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;

When a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our Armed Forces as a “mercenary army”;

When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists and the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief admits he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein’s crimes when he was in power so CNN could stay in Iraq; and It is a time when Amnesty International disgracefully refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare, as “the gulag of our times.”

Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths, and lies, and distortions being told about our troops and our country.

The struggle we are in is too important -- the consequences too severe -- to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of “Blame America First.”

One of the most important things the Legion has done is not only to serve, and assist, and advocate as you’ve done so superbly for much of the past century -- but also to educate and speak the truth about our country and our military.

Not so long ago, an exhibit on the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian during the 1990s seemed to try to rewrite the history of World War II by portraying the United States as an aggressor. Fortunately, the American Legion was there to lead the effort to set the record straight.

This watchdog role is even more important today in a war that is to a great extent fought in the media on a global stage -- to not allow the lies and the myths be repeated without question or challenge -- so that at least the second and third draft of history will be more accurate than the quick first allegations.

You know from experience that in every war there have been mistakes and setbacks and casualties. War is, as Clemenceau said, a “series of catastrophes that results in victory.”

And in every army, there are occasionally bad actors -- the ones who dominate the headlines today -- who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.

But you also know that they are a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving with humanity and decency in the face of constant provocation.

And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

Our enemy knows this well. They frequently invoke the names of Beirut and Somalia -- places they see as examples of American retreat and weakness. And as we have seen most recently -- indeed, this month -- in Lebanon, they design attacks and manipulate the media to try to demoralize public opinion. They doctor photographs of casualties, use civilians as human shields and then provoke an outcry when civilians are accidentally killed in their midst.

The good news is that most of the American people, though understandably influenced by what they read and see in the media, have inner gyroscopes and good centers of gravity.

And I am confident that over time they will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions.

In Iraq, a country that was brutalized and traumatized by a cruel and dangerous dictatorship is now undertaking the slow, difficult, and uncertain steps to secure a new future, under a representative government -- one that is at peace with its neighbors, rather than a threat to their own people, their neighbors, and to the world.

As the nature of the threat and the conflict in Iraq has changed over these past three years, so have the tactics and deployments. But while military tactics have changed and adapted to the realities on the ground, the strategy has not -- which is to empower the Iraqi people to defend, govern, and rebuild their own country.

The extremists themselves have called Iraq the “epicenter” in the War on Terror. They mean it. And our troops know how important completing the mission is.

A Soldier who recently volunteered for a second tour in Iraq, likely captured the feelings of many of his peers. In an e-mail to friends he wrote:

“I ask that you never take advantage of the liberties guaranteed by the shedding of free blood, never take for granted the freedoms granted by our Constitution. For those liberties would be merely ink on paper were it not for the sacrifice of generations of Americans who heard the call of duty and responded heart, mind and soul with ‘Yes, I will.’”

Someday that young man may be a member of the American Legion, attending a convention such as this. I hope he will be. And one day, a future speaker may reflect back on this time of historic choice -- remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, dedication, and willingness to continue this fight until we have prevailed.

I believe the question is not whether we can win. It is whether we have the will to persevere.

I believe that Americans do have that steel. And that we have learned the lessons of history, the folly of turning a blind eye to danger, and of ignoring our responsibilities. These are lessons you know well -- lessons that your heroism has taught to generations of Americans.

May God bless each of you. May God bless the men and women in uniform and their families. And may God continue to bless our wonderful country.

Quote:

---

Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey.

---

So.... where does he say that?

After a quick skim, I think it was a pretty good speech on the balance. :yes:

As I said, I'm not certain this is the speech referenced, and I'm not sure the transcript is accurate. After a quick skim, Howlin' Don Rumsfeld moves from discussing fascist appeasers in the U.S. Senate and immediately asks one of his patented rhetorical questions:

# With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?

So we have appeasement of Hitler paired up with appeasement of terrorists. He also carelessly mixes up the viewpoint that the terror fight is about intel and law enforcement with the Blame America First crowd; the former is a legitimate strategy, the latter is not.

Anyway, if time permits I'll dig around for some more transcripts, since this one doesn't seem to be an exact match. I note with deep amusement that he's back to blaming the media for the Iraq war's low polls.

I liked this part, being a former scout...

Quote:

---

Well, I was a proud Cub Scout, then a Boy Scout; then an Explorer Scout; an Eagle Scout; and, in 1975, a Distinguished Eagle Scout. The Scouts represent some of the best qualities in our great country -- and they certainly deserve our support!

---

... and knowing how it was created by a Brit. I have to agree that the best values of the US are created by foreigners, specially value for money Chinese goods. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

When a database search of America’s leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who was punished for misconduct, than mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;

---

I think he has a fair point. I cant say that Ive ever heard of Paul Ray Smith, and I certainly dont remember hearing what he did to earn the Medal of Honor. It used to be that highly decorated soldiers were virtually idolized- now we dont even know who they are since the media seems completely pre-occuppied with covering US attrocities and mis-steps. I wonder if we'd know who Sergeant York was with today's media coverage?

Maybe Rummy is partly to blame for this- but I really dont think you'd be slapping him on the back if he started sponsoring propaganda news reels ala WW2 either.

Bad news to good news in any newspaper is generally an order of magnitude more...:idea2: unless you want to read some sandal wearing hippy newspaper that is made from recycled toilet paper that has editorials on Karma and ads for Soul Cleansing Enema Crystals :juggle2: , are you that kind of Orgah? :inquisitive: Well are ya? :laugh4:

Here's yet another summation of his speech, as posted by that hotbed of liberalism, military.com:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

Linky. So I think I'll stand by the thread title -- if you criticise, regardless of whether or not you have an alternate strategy -- you are an appeasement monkey. Live with it, Xiahou. I'm going to mail you your very own red "A".

[edit]

I'm tickled by one of the respondents in the Military.com discussion board:

Well Mr. Rumsfeld, thats what we get for living in a Democracy "CRITICS." We also have this little thing (thats incidentally written into our Constitution and Bill of Rights) called "Free Press." Sounds to me Mr. Rumsfeld that you would like to subvert these freedoms, and make us no better than the terrorists we are fighting. Mr. Rumsfeld, Cuba-China-Russia-Iran, may all agree with you here, but we Americans and people of free country's certainly don't. If people want to disagree with the way this war on terrorism is being conducted by yourself and your band of 30/40-something appointed pentagon civilians, who trump the better advice of experienced senior military officers, we have every right to do so, because it seems it could be handled a whole lot better than it is.

And the one from marinegrunt99 is a beaut:

The comparison between, Hitler and Bin Laddin, is not logical, nor connected, and outside the scope of reason, it insults my intelligence to attempt to link the two! The term "appeasement" used in this matter, would indicate that the American people agree with our enemy, which is not the case, we disagree with the abject failure of this Administration way it is handling this war! It is just one more "play on words" meant to throw the American people off track!

First, the occupation of Iraq, or all the other lunitic reason's we've been told for this war have all proved wrong! Second, American's have the god give right to express our beliefs, if we disagree with who ever is in power that validates the power we have been given in our Constitution. Our elected officials serve us like any employee of a business, if an employee turns out not to be able to do the job we simply fire him in the next election! For our employee's in the White House, to put out this garbage that we are disloyal or consenting to "Appeasement" because we disagree with one failed policy after another is pure hog wash!

This Administration has failed in their every attempt to validate or prove to us, thier employer's, every last thing they have done to date, i.e., to occupy a country that did absolutely nothing to the United States! If I am wrong, someone please tell me one policy that has worked! If you can't, then please look at the truth or the light of reason. This isn't about our emotional attachment to our flag or to the United States of America, it is about FAILURE on every aspect of this issue, by this Administration! This is the first president in the history of this country that persists to "Stay the course", which has been proven to be wrong, over and over and over, including every reason we have been given for starting this war in the first place.

Quote:

---

I think he has a fair point. I cant say that Ive ever heard of Paul Ray Smith, and I certainly dont remember hearing what he did to earn the Medal of Honor. It used to be that highly decorated soldiers were virtually idolized- now we dont even know who they are since the media seems completely pre-occuppied with covering US attrocities and mis-steps. I wonder if we'd know who Sergeant York was with today's media coverage?

---

I would hardly like to read an exhaustive coverage of the 'news', whatever the news may be. It would be an obviously stupid thing to say that the media does not pick and choose which stories to cover. If people cannot understand that things may go on that are not reported, it is not the media's fault, although the wise may consider looking for better news sources. There's an argument that I hear often running through my head now, what is it? Oh yes, I know: "We should get the government to interfere in these private matters of running business, because the people need to be helped along and shown what the real, government-sponsored, news is." It is the fault of those who cannot fathom a reality beyond what they are shown; the media is likely not lying.

Quote:

---

That was not the initial intent, but it is the current reality.

---

It seems that you would agree that it is not a good thing that it is a 'roach motel'? I don't think that we should pat ourselves on the back over the appalling situation that the Iraqis are in. It seems that the new efforts of intel have been much more effective at curbing terrorism than Operation Iraqi Freedom has been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here's yet another summation of his speech, as posted by that hotbed of liberalism, military.com:
So I think I'll stand by the thread title -- if you criticise, regardless of whether or not you have an alternate strategy -- you are an appeasement monkey. Live with it, Xiahou. I'm going to mail you your very own red "A".

---

Hotbed of liberalism or no, it's still just regurgitating the same AP story that appears almost word for word in your original post, including the same out of context quotes.

As for the thread, and your original post:

Quote:

---

Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey.

---

Its still unsubstantiated by the actual text of the speech as provided by you. :bow:

Quote:

---

Anyway, if time permits I'll dig around for some more transcripts, since this one doesn't seem to be an exact match. I note with deep amusement that he's back to blaming the media for the Iraq war's low polls.

---

I seem to recall a very recent poll of Iraqis were more Iraqis than Americans thought Iraq was going in the right direction. I'll admit I can't find it as of right now, though.

And Lemur, that's an AP article at military.com- one of the good ole boy MSM. And it starts out very much like the original article of yours, and still provides no actual quotes-just the reporter's summary. Soon you'll be telling me the rust is from missile shrapnel. ~;p

Of course, once the MSM gains steam, it never lets little petty facts slow it down.

Crazed Rabbit

Actually reading multiple paragraphs:

Quote:

---

Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated -- or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace -- even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear.

It was, as Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. Senator’s reaction in September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”

Think of that!

I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.

Today, another enemy -- a different kind of enemy -- has also made clear its intentions -- in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.
We need to face the following questions:

# With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?

# Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

# Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?

# And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world’s trouble?

These are central questions of our time. And we must face them.

---

Those are beats in the theme of appeasement.

Quote:

---

But this is still -- in 2006 -- not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

---

And this would be one of the notes that you are either with the current Admin policy or you are trying to divide the countries unity (which would be termed in a time of war?).

I seem to recall a very recent poll of Iraqis were more Iraqis than Americans thought Iraq was going in the right direction. I'll admit I can't find it as of right now, though.

Would those be the more Iraqis who voted for the Supreme council for Islamic revolution whose right direction would be an iranian backed Shia dominated islamic fundamentalist state , those who voted for the Mahdi Army whose right direction would be a Shia dominated Islamic fundamentalist state , or would it be those Iraqis who voted for the breakup of the country into little ethnically pure states run by their own friendly little terrorist groups .
So before you say they think they are going in the "right direction" consider what the direction is and if it is what the coilition wanted when it went in and if it would be beneficial for the country and the region .
Now forgive me if I am wrong , but I don't recall the aims of this war being to strengthen Irans position and widen its influence or to create ethnic conflict that will spread throughout the region .
But hey , maybe that was Rummys secret plan all along and I just didn't get it .
So remember , stay the course , forward to oblivion , we are killing them over there so that we don't have to ...errrr.......whats the last bit again ?

I am a bigger supporter of this administration than most (mostly because the alternatives to get anything done are non-existent) but I criticize all the time, often about Iraq and Rummy’s decisions there. Let me continue my criticism of this administration by saying that I don’t think DR should make sweeping generalizations about the people’s criticism of the disappointing work that has been done in Iraq. Don’t want to get criticized? Do things right. That’s the way it works at my job. There is a difference between throwing stones and offering constructive criticism, Perhaps DR should pay more attention to the later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hotbed of liberalism or no, it's still just regurgitating the same AP story that appears almost word for word in your original post, including the same out of context quotes.

As for the thread, and your original post:Its still unsubstantiated by the actual text of the speech as provided by you. :bow:

---

This is turning interesting. It appears that the transcript is the speech referenced, and both the MSM and DoD are issuing "clarifications." The latest revision of the AP story reads thusly:

Rumsfeld alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."

Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said "it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons." Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.

So the AP is "clarifying," and so is Rumsfeld's staff, when they state that "he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists," when that's an obvious implication of his speech.

Yet another Aug. 30th version of the same event, from a different reporter:

Rumsfeld did not directly accuse any specific critic or group of advocating the appeasement of terrorists, and he did not identify the administration opponents who were the focus of his criticism. Surveys have shown that although most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake, they support U.S. efforts to track down terrorists.

Rumsfeld's use of the word "appease" was particularly notable, referring to the failed efforts of the pre-Churchill British government to mollify Hitler. Administration officials in the past have used the term "appeasement" to deflect criticism or justify White House policies — President Bush did so just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. But Rumsfeld in his speech appeared to use the term in a markedly more pointed way.

Rumsfeld alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."

Damn , Rummy is right .
The critics of of the Administrations war policies have failed to stop them in time , just as critics of the Nazis failed to stop them in time.

Quote:

---

If you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey.

---

Now I'm confused. Is this instead of hating America and loving Satan, or as well as?

As well as hating America, though not necessarily being a Satan-lover.

Anyways, it seems the actual speech was much, much different from 'criticise us at all and you're appeasing terrorists", being closer to saying "appeasing terrorists won't work, sillies".

Crazed Rabbit

If Mr Rumsfeld is allowed to draw facile parallels with 1930's appeasers, am I allowed to make the facile point that there is very little in his speech that could not have been written by Herr Goebbels? Strong leader, tick, celebration of martial virtues, tick, importance of will to win, tick, surrounded by enemies, tick, importance of unity of the volk, whoops, nation, tick....

I think I preferred it when US politicans were ripping off Neil Kinnock's speeches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

If Mr Rumsfeld is allowed to draw facile parallels with 1930's appeasers, am I allowed to make the facile point that there is very little in his speech that could not have been written by Herr Goebbels? Strong leader, tick, celebration of martial virtues, tick, importance of will to win, tick, surrounded by enemies, tick, importance of unity of the volk, whoops, nation, tick....

I think I preferred it when US politicans were ripping off Neil Kinnock's speeches.

---

For American readers unfamiliar with the former leader of the Labour party. From the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations.

Kinnock, Neil 1942– 
(British Labour politician)

1. (during the Falklands War, replying to a heckler who said that Mrs Thatcher ‘showed guts’) It's a pity others had to leave theirs on the ground at Goose Green to prove it.
[television interview, 6 June 1983]

2. If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday, I warn you not to be ordinary, I warn you not to be young, I warn you not to fall ill, and I warn you not to grow old.
(on the prospect of a Conservative re-election)
[speech at Bridgend, 7 June 1983]

3. Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to a university?
(later plagiarized by the American politician Joe Biden)
[speech in party political broadcast, 21 May 1987]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Now I'm confused. Is this instead of hating America and loving Satan, or as well as?

---

If you hate America you automatically love Satan. And Eat babies.

If Mr Rumsfeld is allowed to draw facile parallels with 1930's appeasers, am I allowed to make the facile point that there is very little in his speech that could not have been written by Herr Goebbels?
Nope , put a bit more thought into the complexities of it and you can get a decent comparrison between the Nazis and their followers and elements of the current administration and some of their more vocal followers without being facile at all .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaun

If you hate America you automatically love Satan. And Eat babies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Now I'm confused. Is this instead of hating America and loving Satan, or as well as?

---

You're confused. A very reliable man with a beard told me that America was the great Satan. Since I believe everything else he has told me unconditionally, then the question arises:

So surely if I love Satan, I must love America? I already eat babies by the way, with liberal quantities of appeasement on the side. Cheesy Appease TM, that is, the best for a diet conscious quisling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This is turning interesting. It appears that the transcript is the speech referenced, and both the MSM and DoD are issuing "clarifications." The latest revision of the AP story reads thusly:

---

I wonder who called them out on the original story? It seems uncharacteristic of them to back away from their original story so quickly.

Regardless, chalk this story up as another clear example of biased reporting (I cant find the thread for it anymore).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

I think I preferred it when US politicans were ripping off Neil Kinnock's speeches.

---

I believe the right scummy Joe Biden is contemplating another presidential run.

Of course, he's got no chance.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

You're confused. A very reliable man with a beard told me that America was the great Satan. Since I believe everything else he has told me unconditionally, then the question arises:

So surely if I love Satan, I must love America? I already eat babies by the way, with liberal quantities of appeasement on the side. Cheesy Appease TM, that is, the best for a diet conscious quisling.

---

I was going to make a sarcastic comment along those lines, but you beat me to it, and quite handily! Bearded men really should rule the world, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danfda

I was going to make a sarcastic comment along those lines, but you beat me to it, and quite handily! Bearded men really should rule the world, you know.

---

Yessss. I knew it would come in handy some day.

On the subject of bearded men...

Quote:

---

Breaking News:

Bearded Man Shot in Subway.

Initial reports said that he was carrying a large sack. When told to drop the bag by police he is reported as exclaiming "I'm Satan, I'm Satan!". Then as his hand went to his red jacket pocket police opened fire. It is believed that one of the members of the police special unit was hit in crossfire. The sack spilled onto the platform showing a complex set of boxes, one of which smashed open revealing some sort of electronics and plastic explosive.

---

On the subject of bearded men...


They shot Santa , the bastards , he was really usefull for cleaning the chimney:furious3:

In News form Other sources

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Man Dressed as Santa Murdered in Subway by Overzealous Security.

Initial reports stated that a man dressed as Santa wearing the red suit and carrying a large sack of presents was shot dead in a subway today. He was apparently on his way to a special event for the Make-A-Wish Foundation for children with cancer when he was stopped by security. They shouted at him to drop the sack and the spooked man stuttered out “I’m San ta ta ta, I’m Santaa.”

According to the distraught five year old witness it is at this point the old man ‘s face went pale and he clutched his hand to his chest in pain. Independent coroners report has not been finalised but it appears that he had a heart attack at this juncture. Even though he was in apparent physical distress from the point of view of a child, the overzealous security forces open fire and gunned down the kindly old volunteer for sick children. After falling to the ground one of the guards stood over the gentleman and shot him in the back of his head.

Our five year old witness said that the sack of toys had spilled open and that he could see Play Doh and electronic video games inside the broken boxes.

The security forces apparently cannot be interviewed by police at least for 24 hours after the incident. The mayor is refusing all calls on the incident as is the head of police. While the organisers for the Make-A-Wish Foundation have put out a statement to their employees not to come to the event dressed as either the Easter Bunny or Sponge Bob Square Pants. The Make-A-Wish Foundation have already posted bail for two other bearded employees who were with Santa, their names have not be revealed but they were apparently playing Moses and Jesus.

---

The message will always be filtered and massaged for the market the media wishes to sell in. Look at Fox and then do a quick investigation of how it spins items for USA vs the Chinese market

Nooooooooo! *Dies from grief*

Those monsters!

They...killed....santa....

Quote:

---

While the organisers for the Make-A-Wish Foundation have put out a statement to their employees not to come to the event dressed as either the Easter Bunny or Sponge Bob Square Pants.

---

...okay...

More updates for the Holin' Don Rumsfeld fans in the Backroom (you know who you are). This mini-controversy has become official, as reported by the quisling liberal terror-lovers at Voice of America:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rumsfeld Speech on Terrorism Generates Controversy

By Al Pessin
Pentagon
30 August 2006

The Defense Department has called on the Associated Press to correct a report that it says mischaracterized a speech by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday. But the AP is standing by the story and many other news organizations ran similar accounts of the speech.

Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to a veterans group drew parallels between the current conflict with terrorists and the period between World Wars I and II.

"It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among western democracies, when those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and Nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored," said Donald Rumsfeld.

The secretary said today America faces a new type of fascism that, just as in the 1930s, can not be accommodated or appeased.

"This enemy is serious, lethal and relentless," he said. "But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters, there is more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats."

Rumsfeld asked a series of rhetorical questions, including this one.

"With the growing lethality and increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased," asked Secretary Rumsfeld.

Secretary Rumsfeld specifically criticized the human rights group Amnesty International, as well as media coverage of the war in Iraq, saying it is focused too much on bad news. He said that could damage public support for what he sees as the broader struggle against violent extremism.

"That is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere," he said.

In his report on the speech, Associated Press reporter Robert Burns, the senior newswire service reporter covering the Pentagon, said Secretary Rumsfeld had "accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counter-terrorism policies of trying to appease" terrorists. A later version of the story noted that Rumsfeld had not specifically mentioned critics of the administration, but quoted the secretary as saying "many" have not learned history's lessons.

The Pentagon issued a statement saying the story "seriously mischaracterized" the secretary's remarks, and calling on the Associated Press to correct the story. On Wednesday, Pentagon Press Secretary Eric Ruff explained just what he thinks was wrong with the report.

"The mischaracterization comes from the reporting that said the secretary was accusing critics of the Bush administration of supporting appeasement or being appeasers," said Eric Ruff. "I'm paraphrasing. And that is not what was said by the secretary."

In response to an email inquiry, spokeswoman Linda Wagner said only that the Associated Press is standing by its story. She provided no other response to the Pentagon criticism and declined a request for an interview.

Other major news organizations also interpreted Secretary Rumsfeld's words as referring to administration critics, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today and CNN.

Democratic Party politicians responded angrily to the secretary's remarks, with some again calling for his resignation.

Secretary Rumsfeld has frequently spoken about what he sees as the high stakes of the war on terrorism, and the central role that the fighting in Iraq has in that broader conflict. President Bush is planning a series of speeches with a similar theme, starting Thursday.

Still more fallout:

Within minutes of the conclusion of Rumsfeld's speech yesterday, I received an e-mail from Thayer C. Scott, the secretary's speechwriter, serving up talking points.

The Defense Department then took the unusual step, usually reserved for its broadsides against Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, of issuing a statement saying that the Associated Press coverage of Rumsfeld's Salt Lake City remarks mischaracterized them.

Either Rumsfeld has delivered one of the most important speeches of the modern era, or he's gone crazy.

I think the latter, not just because I think the secretary is wrong on his intellectual characterization of terrorism, and not just because he is wrong about the media and its intentions, and not because he is so pugnacious, or because he has been wrong so many times before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

More updates for the Holin' Don Rumsfeld fans in the Backroom (you know who you are). This mini-controversy has become official, as reported by the quisling liberal terror-lovers at Voice of America:

---

Quisling liberal terror-lovers? I dont see what that has to do with anything. They're saying it's controversial- and of course it is. No small wonder that there's controversy having read that hatchet job from the AP. :yes:

That santa thing is terrible, pape. Those security officers ought to be jailed. >:(

A nice video response to Rumsfeld's appeasment argument.

"That is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere,"


What a load of bollox , do not report bad news or give any negative aspects any time because they will weaken you , don't question the morals of it , don't question the wisdom of it , don't question what is right or wrong .
They're saying it's controversial- and of course it is.
Controversial ????????
Absolute fruitcake bordering on meglomaniac fascist nutjob .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A nice video response to Rumsfeld's appeasment argument.

---

:laugh4: Boy ole Keith looks hopping mad- you'd think Rumsfeld slapped his kid or something. In a sense, I guess he did- the main target of Rumsfeld's speech is the biased coverage of the mainstream media. As I've said earlier, stories of heroism and good news in general is either ignored or only mentioned in passing. Abu Ghraib gets front page coverage for over a month, while I suspect most Americans are completely unaware of a Medal of Honor winner from Iraq.

Methinks Keith protests too much. :wink:

Abu Ghraib gets front page coverage for over a month, while I suspect most Americans are completely unaware of a Medal of Honor winner from Iraq.

Thats because a soldier doing their job isn't really news Xiahou , a dickhead disgracing their nation is news .

As I've said earlier, stories of heroism and good news in general is either ignored or only mentioned in passing.
Come on then , you have tried the old "good news from iraq" topic before , it died a bit of a death didn't it , try again , the new Pentagon report on Iraq is out , surely somewhere in the 63 pages you can glean some good news to post to counter the liberal bias .:idea2:
Here have this one for a starter ......good news , the number of killings last month was slightly lower than the previous month :sweatdrop:
See its easy :2thumbsup: till of course you consider that the slight reduction is a very slight reduction on a month that set a new all time high:oops:
Damn , try something else:idea2: ... the new schools and medical facilities :2thumbsup: oh dear , another :oops:

damn:no: , I know , try the poll on the number of Iraqis who think there is a prospect of things getting better , that would be a good uplifting piece of news:2thumbsup: ....oh bugger the same people just did another poll and even by adding the new options of different timescales for things to get better still couldn't get a good news result , :oops: perhaps they should lengthen the time scale available , perhaps ask " do you think life in Iraq will be better in 50 years or 100":laugh4:

You see Xiahou , the problem isn't bias in reporting , its just that there isn't much good news to report .:shrug:
Now I know you don't see that as you are rummys ideal citizen , you don't question you just accept the same old empty rhetoric that they churn out , but sorry to break it to you , the crap they are feeding you has very little connection to reality .

Quote:

---

Thats because a soldier doing their job isn't really news Xiahou , a dickhead disgracing their nation is news .

---

You don't get a Medal of Honor for just doing your job. Perhaps you should try acquiring a little knowledge about something before opening your mouth.

Crazed Rabbit

That's a crock Tribesman and you know it. I'm not going to argue all is going swimmingly in Iraq because we all know it hasn't. But the media switched instantly from euphoria and bliss to death, destruction and the worst standard of living Americans have ever had to endure on January 21, 2001. Claiming the media is 'telling it as it is' makes you look even more partisan than I suspect you actually are, and that's saying a lot.

Or is it your contention that not a single good thing has happened, related to Bush or not, in the USA in the past 5 and a half years? Because that's the story we get from our MSM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Abu Ghraib gets front page coverage for over a month, while I suspect most Americans are completely unaware of a Medal of Honor winner from Iraq.

Thats because a soldier doing their job isn't really news Xiahou , a dickhead disgracing their nation is news .

---

Both should be reported. The bad more so then the good, but both need to be shown.

One because transparnecy is important when dealing with a large organization. A good organization will survive any bad press it gets from "dickheads." In fact I would state that reporting the bad forces the military to insure its following its own rules.

When an individual is awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor - he is doing more then just his job.

After reading all of the posts in this thread, and carefully pouring over the actual speech, I can only say that well.....he's entitled to his opinion. That he truly believes that what he is saying is evident. That he is only doing his job by supporting his boss is undeniable. That he feels that any thinking person cannot see through his attempt to connect the appeasement of the Axis powers prior to WWII (a legal declared war) with critics of the War on Terror (a sort of legal undeclared war) is the hieght of self denial. When will he face the fact that this has been a colossal blunder from the start.

The only victory that I will acept as legitimate is the complete destruction of Al Queda, Osama Bin Laden's head on a pike, and the full restoration of soveriegnty to Afghanistan and Iraq along with graciuos acceptance of whatever form of government that the people of those countries chose to have. If this means civil war for Iraq, than that is their problem to work out. If it means allowing a theocracy to develop, than that is what we must agree to. Any other result that we coerce down the throats of these people is against everything I have been raised to believe is great about the United States that I love. I would rather lose than see our principals trashed in the process of victory. This will inevitably destroy us more certainly than any terrorist attack no matter how feirce.

There is a war going on for sure. It is the war for the soul of Democracy within our own country, even as my brave comrades are killed and maimed for the "freedom" of others. I will not tarnish their efforts on the behalf of others by trite comments as those issued in a speech 5000 miles away by a man seeking political gain from their sacrifice. I wish only to warn my fellow Americans to the lurking dangers from within. Criticism of elected or appointed officials who are prosecuting any war is well within the bounds of our constitutional rights. I have sworn my life to defend the rights of my fellow countrymen and women to do so, as this right was paid for in blood by others before us during our war for independence. While I do not agree with Donald Rumsfeld, I will accept his right to say whatever he wants in a speech. I will not be made to keep silent for fear of being called an "appeaser" by his kind.

Regards,

PS: I didn't mean to get to high on my horse, I am just passionate about this subject.

Perhaps you should try acquiring a little knowledge about something before opening your mouth.


Oh stop it before I wet myself laughing Rabbit .:dizzy2:


That's a crock Tribesman and you know it.
OK Don, if it is crock then respond to the invitation I gave Xiahou....
Come on then , you have tried the old "good news from iraq" topic before , it died a bit of a death didn't it , try again , the new Pentagon report on Iraq is out , surely somewhere in the 63 pages you can glean some good news to post to counter the liberal bias .........I would love to hear some good news about Iraq , but there isn't very much good news at all :shrug:

Both should be reported. The bad more so then the good, but both need to be shown.

One because transparnecy is important when dealing with a large organization. A good organization will survive any bad press it gets from "dickheads." In fact I would state that reporting the bad forces the military to insure its following its own rules.

I agree , but the problem is the serious lack of good news to report , it isn't that there is a wholesale media bias that only shows bad stuff , it is that there isn't enough good stuff to broadcast , and half the time the so called good news turns out to be bollox .
It is interesting to note Red that your position is in direct opposition to the last quote I used from Rummy

Here are a few news items that I doubt many have heard about:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Iraqi troops captured the number-2 man in the Islamic Army terrorist group:

The Iraqi army has captured a top rebel from the militant group the Islamic Army in northern Iraq, a senior army officer said on Sunday.

He said Ali Najm Abdullah, also known as Abu Hozeifah and the number two in the Islamic Army, was captured in a raid at 06:00 (02:00 GMT) on Sharifiyah village, located in the insurgent-plagued district of Hawijah west of the oil city of Kirkuk.

The officer said Abdullah and his commander Abu Aesha were responsible for nearly 75 percent of insurgent attacks in northern Iraq's Kirkuk, Mosul and Tikrit regions.

In Baghdad, Iraqi troops captured two top Shiite militia leaders, and killed or wounded between 30 and 40 during the raid:

Iraqi soldiers backed by U.S. troops and military aircraft stormed a building in a Shiite slum here early Friday, killing or wounding between 30 and 40 gunmen and capturing a high-level Shiite militia commander accused of attacking Iraqi and U.S. troops, the U.S. military command said.

U.S. and Iraqi authorities did not disclose the identity of the captured militia commander, but residents said the building that came under attack was a base of operations for a man known as Abu Deraa, a top commander of the Mahdi Army, the restless and potent Shiite militia that answers to the militant Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr.

British troops handed over security of Muthanna to the Iraqis. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq hailed the move as “milestone” in Iraq’s road to freedom and security:

In a joint statement, the U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the U.S. commander in Iraq, General George Casey, hailed it as a milestone in Iraq's capability to govern and protect itself as a “sovereign nation” and said handovers in other provinces will take place as conditions are achieved.

“With this first transition of security responsibility, Muthanna demonstrates the progress Iraq is making toward self- governance,” the statement said, adding that “Multi-National Forces will stand ready to provide assistance if needed.”

It’s the first time since the invasion that Iraqis have taken over sole responsibility for security of a province. Iraqi soldiers understood the importance of the handover:

Beaming Iraqi soldiers walked hand in hand along the field's fringes in the pleasant morning heat (at least for Iraq in July, when temperatures can sometimes hit 130 degrees). Curious spectators pushed through the crowds to catch the dance performances by the splendidly dressed local tribesmen. Up in the stands, small groups of Iraqi soldiers — also looking smart in their now-meaningful uniforms — watched the ceremony in the comfort of the shade. The P.M.'s private security detail showed off their new matching gray sneakers on the track below while keeping an eye out for their boss.

The Iraqi army can now operate its base at Kirkuk independently:

Until recently, the Iraqi Army had to rely on Coalition Forces for their supplies; be it clothing, ammunition or food. Now, however, IA Garrison Support Unit soldiers at Kirkuk’s K-1 Army compound are taking over their own logistical support, fully capable of sustaining the base on their own.

“We all know that all armies are dependent on their logistic support,” said British Brigadier General Jamie Gordon, acting MNSTC-I commander. “This handover marks the first step in bringing the system alive and making the Iraqi Armed Forces fully self-sufficient.”

Iraqis are now in the lead in Diyala Province.

An emergency response unit is now operating in Kirkuk:

Kirkuk’s Emergency Response Unit is a new group of police officers trained to deal with crisis situations and get things under control before the regular police force arrives.

“They’re like a 9-1-1 center,” said 1st Lt. Andrew Salmo, executive officer, Company B, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division. “Getting on the scene first and … conducting initial investigations for the police force.”

The number of tips from Iraqis continues to grow:

As Iraqis see their own countrymen defending them against the terrorists and Saddamists, they are stepping forward with needed intelligence. General Casey reports that the number of tips from Iraqis has grown from 400 in March 2005 to over 4,700 last month.

In Babil, Iraqi security forces captured a leader of anti-Iraqi forces:

The Iraqi forces, assisted by Coalition Force advisers, raided a house in Mahawil, north of Hillah, and captured this insurgent commander without incident.

He is responsible for the following activities: weapons smuggling, including the movement of SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles; espionage activities for Iran ; participating in coordinated improvised explosive device attacks against Coalition forces; murder and intimidation of Iraqi citizens, inciting sectarian violence; and financing the operations of his organization through contacts in both Lebanon and Iran.

Based on tips from Iraqis, Iraqi security forces captured an entire anti-Iraqi cell during a raid in Mosul:

Local civilians provided tips and other investigative resources were used to identify the houses of three possible terrorists. Once the IA troops entered and cleared the houses, four males were detained and questioned about their involvement in insurgent activities. The four men then pointed the Soldiers to whom they believed to be their cell leader at another location.

A secondary raid based on this information lead the Soldiers to another house and two more terrorists, one of whom was identified by several different sources as the cell leader and a terrorist.

A senior insurgent leader was captured in Baqubah. The wanted man was responsible for terrorist activity throughout the middle Euphrates region.

In Baghdad, a top al Qaeda leader was captured by Coalition forces:

The targeted individual is reported to be an Umar Brigade member and recruiter with control of several terrorist fighting cells. The Umar Brigade is an Al-Qaeda in Iraq created and sponsored, Iraqi insurgent group known to target Shia and specifically designed to incite sectarian violence.

In another raid, Iraqi security forces captured a top insurgent leader, responsible for IED attacks, and the murder of Iraqi civilians:

The captured individual heads multiple insurgent cells in Baghdad whose main focus is to conduct attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces. These attacks include the use of Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs, and vehicle-borne IEDs.

He and his followers have kidnapped, tortured and murdered Iraqi citizens, and he is also is personally responsible for the killing two Iraqi soldiers in an attempt to improve his organization's status with higher leadership. Additionally, he is linked to a “punishment committee” that carries out vigilante judgment on perceived enemies of his organization.

Iraq’s border with Syria will become more secure this month with the completion of construction on 23 border forts. Each outpost cost $250,000.

The 900,000 residents of Erbil now have a first-rate maternity and pediatrics hospital:

The two-story Erbil Maternity and Pediatric Hospital renovation began in December 2004 and was recently completed at a cost of $6,830,887. Major repairs and renovations were needed to meet the acceptable standards of functionality and cleanliness set by the International Health Code Standards.

Renovations included the installation of a reverse osmosis potable water treatment system as well as an incinerator to keep medical waste from entering into the solid waste and water systems. Repairs were made in many areas, including to mechanical, electrical, water, sewer and structural systems. Generators were also added to provide power to the hospital regardless of the local power supply.

The Erbil Maternity and Pediatric Hospital has 672 employees. This staff includes doctors, nurses, administrators and other staff members. A doctor’s residence attached to the hospital was also part of the rehabilitation and 39 apartments were modernized.

The community of Al Ahnaf Nahia now has a new government building:

“This is a great moment for our community,” said Anmar Thamer during a ribbon cutting ceremony that marked the official opening of the Al Ahnaf Nahia Council’s new building.

Thamer is chairman of that Council which represents about 50,000 residents in north Baghdad Province. “

After suffering 35 years of neglect under the old regime, our residents finally have something they can call their own.” He says their eventual goal is to have the facility open six days a week “so anybody who lives in this area has an opportunity to come here and get help — whether it’s to file a claim against the government if there’s a problem, or doing normal documentation like verifying one’s residence.”

I'm glad to hear Tribesman will "love" reading some positive news. These are all since July...

Here are a few news items that I doubt many have heard about:

Very good Xiahou :2thumbsup: would you care to post the follow up news on some of those good news items that you think people havn't heard about or would that ruin its "good news" status ?~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Here are a few news items that I doubt many have heard about:
I'm glad to hear Tribesman will "love" reading some positive news. These are all since July...

---

Of course, that is only good news at an operational level. On a national level, the level at which the national press operates, it is barely a footnote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I agree , but the problem is the serious lack of good news to report , it isn't that there is a wholesale media bias that only shows bad stuff , it is that there isn't enough good stuff to broadcast , and half the time the so called good news turns out to be bollox .
It is interesting to note Red that your position is in direct opposition to the last quote I used from Rummy

---

As someone stated the amount of news on the national level of interest to report as "good news" is limited. However if one is interested in getting news about Iraq both the good and bad there are multiple sources available both through the AP source news and the military news channels.

As for the last - since the beginning while agreeing that Saddam had to be removed, but that has never meant I agree with the political crap that spews from Rummy's mouth.

Of course, that is only good news at an operational level. On a national level, the level at which the national press operates, it is barely a footnote.

The thing is Slyspy that if you checkout the backround to those good news stories , or the follow up developments from them it severly reduces the ability to refer to them in the "good news" category .
That has been so much of a problem with most of the "good news" stories during this conflict . Due to its scarcity it is often trumpeted quite loudly , then has to be forgotten rather rapidly as it turns out to be not such "good news" after all .
Though Xiahou's inclusion of the Irbil hospital story does fit into the good news category , if you leave out the backround story about it , and the follow up stories about it and its staff . Perhaps if you focus on the great work by its burns unit and prosthetics dept. then it really is excellent news as it is up there on the leading edge of medical developments worldwide , though of course frazzled and limbless kids can be a bit off putting for prime time media coverage .

However if one is interested in getting news about Iraq both the good and bad there are multiple sources available both through the AP source news and the military news channels.

Yes I know , and of course add in the NGOs , the political groups and the governments involved then there is really no shortage of information, unfortunately no matter which way you look there is a real dearth of good news items that will stand up to much scrutiny , which is why that gobshite Rummy is saying don't look , don't question , just trust me .

In all fairness to the "good news" vs "bad news" debate, it is true that the major news networks, at least in the United States, rarely report much more than the "bad news" side of things. Look at the Isreal/Lebenon struggle. Since the cease fire I can hardly get much information out of them lately. As long as there was death and mayhem going on we got bombarded with endless coverage. Once all the bloodletting stopped it was amazing how quickly they switched gears, the Mark Karr story for instance. It's the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm sure. The conservatives do have a point about the lack of balance in the media, whatever one might think about Rumsfeld's irritating, condescending, and pompous remarks.

I often watch the BBC news just to get a more unbaised story. Am I wrong in that assumption?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Very good Xiahou :2thumbsup: would you care to post the follow up news on some of those good news items that you think people havn't heard about or would that ruin its "good news" status ?~;)

---

You go ahead- you're apparently familiar with the follow-ups.

Honestly though- you're just proving my point. In the few cases above where "bad" news followed good, it's only the bad that's covered in any sort of depth- the "good" that preceded is unknown. Thanks. :bow:

Quote:

---

Thats because a soldier doing their job isn't really news Xiahou , a dickhead disgracing their nation is news .

---

That pretty well illustrates your total lack of objectivity. If "doing your job" got you a medal of honor, every soldier would have one. Do yourself a favor and read up on SFC Paul Ray Smith before you say something so ignorant again. :no:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he was assigned to Bravo Company, 11th Engineer Battalion of the 3rd Infantry Division. His company was supporting the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment as it made its way through the Karbala Gap, across the Euphrates River and to Saddam International Airport in Baghdad.

On April 4, 2003, a 100-man force was assigned to block the highway between Baghdad and the airport, about one mile east of the airport. A brief battle was fought, and several Iraqi prisoners were captured. SFC Smith spotted a walled enclosure nearby with a tower overlooking it. He and his squad set about building an impromptu enemy prisoner of war (EPW) holding area for prisoners in the enclosure.

Smith and 16 other men used an Armored Combat Earthmover (akin to a bulldozer) to knock a hole in the south wall of the courtyard. On the north side, there was a metal gate that Smith assigned several men to guard. These men noticed 50 to 100 Iraqi troops who had taken positions in trenches just past the gate. Smith summoned a Bradley fighting vehicle to attack their position. Three nearby M113 Armored Personnel Carriers came to support their position. An M113 was hit, possibly by a mortar, and all three crewmen were injured.

The Bradley, running low on ammunition and damaged, withdrew during a lull in the battle. Smith organized the evacuation of the injured M113 crewmen. However, behind the courtyard was a military aid station crowded with 100 combat casualties. To protect it from being overrun, Smith chose to fight on rather than withdraw with the wounded.

Meanwhile, some Iraqis had taken position in the tower overlooking the courtyard, just over the west wall. The Iraqis now had the Americans in the courtyard under an intense crossfire. Smith took command of the M113 and ordered a driver to position it so that he could attack both the tower and the trenches. He manned the M113's machine gun, going through three boxes of ammunition. A separate team, led by First Sergeant Tim Campbell attacked the tower from the rear, killing the Iraqis. As the battle ended, Smith's machine gun fell silent. His comrades found him slumped in the turret hatch. His armored vest was peppered with 13 bullet holes, the vest's ceramic armor inserts, both front and back, cracked in numerous places. But the fatal shot, one of the last from the tower, had entered his neck and passed through the brain, killing SFC Smith.

Sometime before the battle Smith had written, but not sent, an email to his parents. In it he wrote, "there are two ways to come home, stepping off the plane and being carried off the plane... it doesn't matter how I come home, because I am prepared to give all that I am to insure that all my boys make it home."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

In all fairness to the "good news" vs "bad news" debate, it is true that the major news networks, at least in the United States, rarely report much more than the "bad news" side of things. Look at the Isreal/Lebenon struggle. Since the cease fire I can hardly get much information out of them lately. As long as there was death and mayhem going on we got bombarded with endless coverage. Once all the bloodletting stopped it was amazing how quickly they switched gears

---

If you want more about the Israel-Lebanon conflict, you could always check up on the number of ceasefire violations since hostilities ended. The UN has counted 4 on the Lebanese side so far, and 70-odd on the Israeli side. Having suffered unacceptable losses in the war, the IDF seem determined to better their balance sheet while the other side are disinclined to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I suspect most Americans are completely unaware of a Medal of Honor winner from Iraq.

Thats because a soldier doing their job isn't really news.

---

Tribes, you really should read up on what it takes to win the Medal of Honor. You do your argument no good by slighting the highest honor our nation can bestow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes I know , and of course add in the NGOs , the political groups and the governments involved then there is really no shortage of information, unfortunately no matter which way you look there is a real dearth of good news items that will stand up to much scrutiny ,

---

This not entirely correct, when one looks at stories on the national level only about Iraq the picture you are attempting here is valid - when you look at all levels of the reports - you can find one to two valid good news reports daily.

Here's one that has not been reported in the National Media here in the United States as far as I know.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?op...5231&Itemid=21

Quote:

---

which is why that gobshite Rummy is saying don't look , don't question , just trust me .

---

This is the standard rethoric of any politician. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all, just like claiming that winning the Medal of Honor is just a soldier doing his job.

You go ahead- you're apparently familiar with the follow-ups.


Too damn right I am Xuiahou , why aren't you ? It is after all you who is trying to push the biased party bullshit .

Honestly though- you're just proving my point.
What frigging point???????
You are like a land minevisctim trying to demonstrate how his non eexistsnt legs work so well and his shredded gonads really manage to pump out future generations .
In all fairness to the "good news" vs "bad news" debate, it is true that the major news networks, at least in the United States, rarely report much more than the "bad news" side of things. Look at the Isreal/Lebenon struggle. Since the cease fire I can hardly get much information out of them lately. As long as there was death and mayhem going on we got bombarded with endless coverage. Once all the bloodletting stopped it was amazing how quickly they switched gears, the Mark Karr story for instance. It's the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan I'm sure. The conservatives do have a point about the lack of balance in the media, whatever one might think about Rumsfeld's irritating, condescending, and pompous remarks.

I often watch the BBC news just to get a more unbaised story. Am I wrong in that assumption?
Not that wrong as such Rotor , it is juty that current headlines featured inn the media are not neccasaaaarly reliable , and itis always worthwhile checking the backround information out and aslo the follow up developments on the story .

Tribes, you really should read up on what it takes to win the Medal of Honor. You do your argument no good by slighting the highest honor our nation can bestow.Sorry Lemur , I knoew yhat such awards are only given forsoldiers wgo do their job really really well , but after that bullshit about the national sporting hero getting a valour award(OK t wasn't a CMH it was a star)then it changes hings , tht was a prime example of bad news becmes good news that after aittke bit of scrutiny becomes bollox news


This not entirely correct, when one looks at stories on the national level only about Iraq the picture you are attempting here is valid - when you look at all levels of the reports - you can find one to two valid good news reports daily.

You ar eright Red , once you wade through the hundreds of bad news shite you can accasionly come across some real good news stories , theproblem is the media bias thet reports the good news shite without retractingit whenit turns out to be bollox . damn that traitorous media bias:juggle2:

Getting back to Howlin' Don Rumsfeld, this is a fun bit from a recent op-ed:

Here’s how brazen Mr. Rumsfeld was when he invoked Hitler’s appeasers to score his cheap points: Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain’s hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?

Mr. Rumsfeld didn’t go to Baghdad in 1983 to tour the museum. Then a private citizen, he had been dispatched as an emissary by the Reagan administration, which sought to align itself with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was already a notorious thug. Well before Mr. Rumsfeld’s trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator’s use of torture — "beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks" — on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had "disappeared." American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

"Islamo-fascism” certainly sounds more impressive than such tired buzzwords as “Plan for Victory” or “Stay the Course.” And it serves as a handy substitute for “As the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.” That slogan had to be retired abruptly last month after The New York Times reported that violence in Baghdad has statistically increased rather than decreased as American troops handed over responsibilities to Iraqis. Yet the term “Islamo-fascists,” like the bygone “evildoers,” is less telling as a description of the enemy than as a window into the administration’s continued confusion about exactly who the enemy is.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ddam_rummy.jpg

Getting back to Howlin' Don Rumsfeld
Come on Lemur , that just isn't fair .
Arthur foxache , what are you going to come up qwith next ?
Bush (not the current one as he is a bit thick for finance) and Hitler .
Damn those apeasing supporting sons of a beach .

Tribesman, as hard as it may be for your ranting mind to accept, there is actual good news from Iraq, and it doesn't all turn out as s***** as your post right before Lemur's.

Also, despite your continued raving on the subject, the Medal of Honor is not something given away lightly, and your blabbering just shows far off the deep end you've sunk.

Excuse me while I break out the popcorn to watch the inevitable show to follow.

Lemur; if you're going to knock Rumsfeld for meeting Saddam, you've got to knock FDR for meeting Stalin.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Lemur; if you're going to knock Rumsfeld for meeting Saddam, you've got to knock FDR for meeting Stalin.

---

Yeah, because Rumsfeld was finding desperate allies to fight a freakin' genocidal regime hell-bent on conquering the world. :no:

And FDR didn't even live to be hypocritical like Mr. Rumsfeld is now.

Tribesman, as hard as it may be for your ranting mind to accept, there is actual good news from Iraq, and it doesn't all turn out as s***** as your post right before Lemur's
Silly boy Rabbit , would you like to read what was written and then try to understand it .

Anyhow some good news from Iraq .
A group of legless veterans is learnng to surf , sure its bad news that they lost limbs , but anything that introduces people to surfing has got to be good news .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Tribes, you really should read up on what it takes to win the Medal of Honor. You do your argument no good by slighting the highest honor our nation can bestow.Sorry Lemur , I knoew yhat such awards are only given forsoldiers wgo do their job really really well , but after that bullshit about the national sporting hero getting a valour award(OK t wasn't a CMH it was a star)then it changes hings , tht was a prime example of bad news becmes good news that after aittke bit of scrutiny becomes bollox news

---

Poor Tribes are you confusing sports hero's getting the valor award (the silver star) during an attack where he was shot by his own troops as an examble of bollox? Are you confusing this with what it takes to get the highest award for valor? Are you confusing the actions of the commanders in attempting to cover up the soldier's friendly fire death with the bravery in the face of fire in which the award represents?

Quote:

---

This not entirely correct, when one looks at stories on the national level only about Iraq the picture you are attempting here is valid - when you look at all levels of the reports - you can find one to two valid good news reports daily.

You ar eright Red , once you wade through the hundreds of bad news shite you can accasionly come across some real good news stories , theproblem is the media bias thet reports the good news shite without retractingit whenit turns out to be bollox . damn that traitorous media bias:juggle2:

---

Tsk Tsk did I say the media was traitorous in their biased reporting? I think not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

According to Donald Rumsfeld, people who criticise the current administration's Iraq policies are appeasing a "new type of fascism." Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey. But wait, there's more:

In some unusually blunt terms, Rumsfeld says the administration's detractors suffer from "moral and intellectual confusion" about global security threats and he says they lack the courage to fight back.

Unfortunately for the Backroom, I think everyone in here has been critical of at least some small part of the conduct of the Iraq war. I hate to say it, but we're all fascist appeasers. You heard it here first.

---

Doesnt America have freedom of speech? SO basically the world is fascist just because we disagree?

Lemur you are my hero of the day! That picture of good ole' smilin' Donald just says it all IMHO. This picture comes to mind every time he opens his pie-hole about how we needed to invade Iraq to oust his ole' buddy Saddam. He is the penultimate beaurocratic, sycophantic, hypocritical stooge of the Republican party that has ever existed. He has been hanging on to the coatails of Republican politicoes since the days of Nixon, for God's sake. I have never wanted to punch the lights out of a Secretary of Defense before, until he came along.

Pheww! :sweatdrop: Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Yeah, because Rumsfeld was finding desperate allies to fight a freakin' genocidal regime hell-bent on conquering the world. :no:

---

No, just the Soviets. :wink:

Quote:

---

And FDR didn't even live to be hypocritical like Mr. Rumsfeld is now.

---

Ya got me there. :laugh4:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ddam_rummy.jpg

Actually guys this is how we want the Org to be ran. Even if you dislike what a person stands for, be polite, even if you are about to take over his country and wipe out his family, be polite, smile, shakehands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

Lemur you are my hero of the day! That picture of good ole' smilin' Donald just says it all IMHO. This picture comes to mind every time he opens his pie-hole about how we needed to invade Iraq to oust his ole' buddy Saddam. He is the penultimate beaurocratic, sycophantic, hypocritical stooge of the Republican party that has ever existed. He has been hanging on to the coatails of Republican politicoes since the days of Nixon, for God's sake. I have never wanted to punch the lights out of a Secretary of Defense before, until he came along.

Pheww! :sweatdrop: Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

---

At times even I have such visions of reason, and can acknowledge we (the US) have a moron running our DoD.

Having said that, it is rather honorable (to say nothing og gullable) for our President to continue to support a Nixon appointee. Rummy.

The USA is within a nats-ass of having a military coupe, but no one realises it. Why? The loyalty of the generals that haven't been fired. Er, can someone tell Donny and George that all these men served together as Lt's and as boys? Even the fired ones.

Rummy needs to say bye-bye. Bush needs to be the one to tell him (not that the dickless whimp ever could). But the reality is, Rummy needs to go. So does Dick, but that's another story.

Not since Kennedy have the Generals been so angry as to consider .... assassination, or stepping in to "correct things". The Gens really wanted that air-support for Cuba (as tho it would have mattered), and held a grudge because of its denial - some anyway). Today, it is more a matter that civilian rule, versus military dictum dictates the conduct of conflict (war).

The wisest Presidents have basically said, "Point the direction the army needs to take, and allow the generals to solve the problems - resolve how it [the mission] is to be accomplished. After all, why else do we need Generals?".

Regardless, the GOP and the present Lame-duck administration seem convinced that by creating new terminology - "Fascis-Islamic" - that the average American in the Dakotas, Indiana, Mo, Ks, etc. doesn't comprehend the meaning - but accepts the import of the message (Nazis) .... then it is job well done. Face it, the GOP truely believes Americans are idiots. Twist a word, change a phrase, exagerate an item, lie about a persons military service record (regardless of good = McCain, or bad = GWB), or accuse a war hero of cheating (on how he became one = Kerry, JFK, etc).

We live in an era of mysticysm. We live in a time where the errosion of liberties seems some how justified - for some.

Personally, anyone stupid enough to still believe the BS coming out of Donny's mouth, needs to be return to the remidial Nixon GOP acceptance class - they missed the lesson about how to properly eat S__t. Had their parents been aware that the child could'nt think - I am sure they would have put it on a rock to weather the elements. Maybe not. After all, if a kid can swallow the the crap the GOP parents have, it must be a pat on the head and and extention of time to listen to Limpballs.

As for appeasement.
Me? Chamberland did what his nation wanted him to. Were he to have done other, or been confrontational? Look at the whole of situation ..... The Brits as a whole would not have been happy (the world applauded his acheivement). After all, they just wanted to live in peace. Something Rummy can't quite grasp since now he has the power to send 10s of thousands of American boys into harms way with the wave of his hand. Chamberland, got duped - it happens to the best of us. Rummy? Well, he's an idiot that any President that actually had control of his government would have asked to resign years ago. Bush, can't - because the people that control Rummy ... control him. Chamberlain did his job, he made an attempt to preserve world peace - unfortunately he was dealing with a madman.

The known hotbed of liberal appeasement elite cut-and-run leftist communism, The Financial Times, has commented on Rumsfeld's reasoning:

It may be unfashionable to acknowledge this, but Mr Rumsfeld is making one valid and important point. There should be no moral confusion about who is responsible for the heartbreaking violence in Iraq. It is not the American army that is planting car bombs in markets. Some of the most ardent critics of the Iraq war are in danger of almost welcoming further bad news as an opportunity to say "I told you so". They should recognise that it is still overwhelmingly in the interests of those who want a freer and more peaceful Middle East that the Americans and their allies succeed in stabilising Iraq.

The trouble is that while some of Mr Rumsfeld's more ardent critics may be guilty of "moral confusion", the US defence secretary himself gives every sign of intellectual confusion. To call Iraqi insurgents and Islamist terrorists "fascists" and to accuse opponents of the war of "appeasement" may be a useful rhetorical device in the run-up to the American mid-term elections. But it also suggests that the Bush administration is still falling back on tired intellectual categories drawn from the 1930s, rather than thinking seriously and creatively about the new challenges it is facing.

Worse, the Bush administration is sowing further confusion by equating today's war with the struggle against Nazism - and then resisting any suggestion that victory may require higher taxes or more troops. Such a rhetorical mismatch inevitably feeds growing domestic cynicism and disillusionment with the war.

In the coming weeks Mr Bush is expected to make a series of speeches that will seek to rally support for the war in Iraq. He will need to go beyond Mr Rumsfeld's angry denunciation of critics of the war. Instead, the president must lay out a frank and calm analysis of what has gone wrong in Iraq and state clearly what he thinks is now required to help that tortured country to achieve stability. If that means more troops and more money, Mr Bush should say so. For without a convincing and honest analysis of the current situation, he may find that the domestic demand for a rapid American withdrawal from Iraq becomes unstoppable.

Or, as Otto von Bismarck so memorably said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Or, as Otto von Bismarck so memorably said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election."

---

hah, that gets Rumsfield on two counts then. And Dick Cheney on three :laugh4:

Quote:

---

The USA is within a nats-ass of having a military coupe, but no one realises it. Why? The loyalty of the generals that haven't been fired. Er, can someone tell Donny and George that all these men served together as Lt's and as boys? Even the fired ones.

Rummy needs to say bye-bye. Bush needs to be the one to tell him (not that the dickless whimp ever could). But the reality is, Rummy needs to go. So does Dick, but that's another story.

---

Sigh.

Quote:

---

And Dick Cheney on three

---

"Um, I didn't shoot anything...":laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The known hotbed of liberal appeasement elite cut-and-run leftist communism, The Financial Times, has commented on Rumsfeld's reasoning:

[indent]It may be unfashionable to acknowledge this, but Mr Rumsfeld is making one valid and important point. There should be no moral confusion about who is responsible for the heartbreaking violence in Iraq. It is not the American army that is planting car bombs in markets. Some of the most ardent critics of the Iraq war are in danger of almost welcoming further bad news as an opportunity to say "I told you so". They should recognise that it is still overwhelmingly in the interests of those who want a freer and more peaceful Middle East that the Americans and their allies succeed in stabilising Iraq.

---

I would've bolded that part myself. :yes:

Quote:

---

To call Iraqi insurgents and Islamist terrorists "fascists" and to accuse opponents of the war of "appeasement" may be a useful rhetorical device in the run-up to the American mid-term elections. But it also suggests that the Bush administration is still falling back on tired intellectual categories drawn from the 1930s, rather than thinking seriously and creatively about the new challenges it is facing.

---

Umm, I dont get it... they are fascists arent they? Let's look to Webster's:

facsism: 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Sounds pretty close to their stated goals to me. :shrug:

I also think it's much more contentious, but it certainly is arguable that opponents of the war tend towards 'appeasement' or 'defeatism'. It's important to distinguish between critics of how the war in Iraq is being handled- but it's totally unproductive to run around screaming about how we never should've gone... We're there now- it's too late. Further, the idea that we should pull out now is pretty much, by definition, defeatist is it not? So, if that's someone's actual position, why cry foul whenever someone calls you on what your advocating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Umm, I dont get it... they are fascists arent they? Let's look to Webster's:

facsism: 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

---

Going by Webster's, (1) the fundamentalists we're facing are not overly concerned with nation or race. They've happily accepted caucasian jihadis when they could get them, which ain't often. They're all about religion and ideology, not race and border.

(2) Hard to ascribe autocratic and/or dictatorial control to a diffused, networked band of like-minded murderers who are by their very nature decentralized. If Al- Qaeda and their lot were using centralized command and control, don't you think we'd have wrapped them up by now?

Nope, Webster's version doesn't support the latest re-definition of the GWOT. Feel free to grab some more definitions, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Going by Webster's, (1) the fundamentalists we're facing are not overly concerned with nation or race. They've happily accepted caucasian jihadis when they could get them, which ain't often. They're all about religion and ideology, not race and border.

(2) Hard to ascribe autocratic and/or dictatorial control to a diffused, networked band of like-minded murderers who are by their very nature decentralized. If Al- Qaeda and their lot were using centralized command and control, don't you think we'd have wrapped them up by now?

Nope, Webster's version doesn't support the latest re-definition of the GWOT. Feel free to grab some more definitions, though.

---

You missed the qualifier "often" when it applies to race didnt you? Easy mistake.

As for point 2, you're clearly confusing means with goals. Their goal is now and has been:

Quote:

---

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

---

link

Clear it up for you?