Rumsfeld gets Bashed

[BigTex]

Originally posted KafirChobee
so, Officers accept the duty of Congress over the president? That being the people (nation) over a man? While the enlisted men swear an allegiance to a man - like the nazis did to Hitler.

The officers arent under the command of the congress (luckily, would be a horrid place if congress had control of the army). They are commanded by their supperiors, the end of the chain is the Commander in Cheif (the president). The president is a servent of the people. As for the enlisted man you may want to read that more carefully, you see here, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the enlisted man swears to uphold the constitution against any enemy. Which is first and foremost before serving his superior (the president). Come on comparing a US soldier to a nazi stormtrooper is bogus. Seriously you may want to rethink your wording on that.

Rummy's concepts, policies (torure is OK

Depends on what your definition of torture is quite honestly. Alot of those liberals out there say sleep depervation is torture. Personally I say anything that doesnt physically harm them is ok. Covering the face with cellyphane and pouring water over them was quiet creative, I sure hope the CIA will continue to use that technique.

To those of you complaining that Rumsfeld is trying to minimize and crack down on the officers criticizing him, you might want to note that it is illegal for them to criticize a superior. Also there arent really, "retired" officers/generals, since any of them could be called back to active duty at any point in the future. Regardless of whether they resigned or age, only exception being the dishonorably discharged. So having a non-active general questioning a superior is a bad idea, it insites other to question their superiors and that is not how the an army should work.

I'd have to agree with Redleg, Kafir you may want to take it easy on the liberal blogs.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

And Red is off!


I didn't mean it in a bad way, please don't hurt me!

[Redleg]

And Red is off!


I didn't mean it in a bad way, please don't hurt me!

Not at all - I found his response very amusing and telling at the same time.

[Brenus]

“ Personally I say anything that doesnt physically harm them is ok. Covering the face with cellyphane and pouring water over them was quiet creative,” Yep, all these methods that was used by the Gestapo (S.D.) (included the dog’s one). If you don’t want to be compared with the Nazi, don’t use NAZI techniques.

[JimBob]

So having a non-active general questioning a superior is a bad idea, it insites other to question their superiors and that is not how the an army should work.

Questioning people when they are obviously wrong is a bad idea?

[rotorgun]

Alrighty then, If ya'll don't mind an old soldier, who is still in the service of his country, wading in here for a few words.

1. It is the President's descision on who to hire and fire in his cabinet. If a he did that every time that someone politically, or personally attacked one of his cabinet members, he might as well install a revolving door to the breifing room. I am a little disappointed with those Generals that didn't speak up earlier.

2. While I disagree with the timing of this war politically, it is a fact that we are in it. We might as well try to win it, or pack up and go home. I guess what bothers me about Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and the whole lot of them, is the utter hypocrisy of their policies. This is not a war of liberation, a search for WMDs, a counterattack on the Terrorists or any other such causes. These where merely the pretenses (which kept changing almost weekly leading up to the war) for invasion. The Greeks and Romans were masters of this way of building political support for their wars as well. Ring a bell?

3. The primary reasons for this war IMH military opinion are twofold:

a. First, it is an extension of the policies recommended to the former President Bush in the 1990's by none other than the former Secratary of Defense, DicK Cheney, and his humble assistant, Paul Wolfowitz; now a the CEO of the World Bank and a major player in international finance for such things as...oh I don't know - Oil company reasearch and development loans. They both recommended that the United States do whatever it must to prevent the rise of a future competitor anywhere after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is all outlined in the Strategic Planning Guide that was issued to many key players during that administration. (It can be found online) The plan to move on the Gulf region is clearly outlined there. Controlling the oil reserves in this region were mentioned as a means of keeping the lid on the Saudi's dominance of the oil market at the time.

b. Secondly, (please bear with me) a plan has been in motion for some years now to put a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf through Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Two of the key players involved were Cheveron Corporation, former workplace of, guess who, Condaleza Rice and, who'd have known, Halliburton. (Dick Cheney should have resigned from the Vice Presidency for this) The only problem was that International financiers, of which one was the World Bank, would not agree to finance the loans due to the presence of the Taliban, and a certain religous fanatic, one Osama Bin Laden. Hmmmm....I guess there was a little problem in Ol'e Bactria? This leads me to my second point. If I were going to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, what more excuse would I need than Osama Bin Laden's attack of the World Trade Center? Hence one invasion of Afghanistan. But wait, there's more.

You guys are all real smart strategists aren't you? If I wanted to keep my little Pipleline construction project hopes from counterattack by my rivals, what better way than a nice little diversion? What better deversion than a War in Iraq? While this was never the said intention of our going there, it certainly has become a reality. Our forces are now "drawing the Terorist attacks away from the United States" says Rumsfeld. Well of course! It stands to reason that they are no longer a threat to my plans in Afghanistan either! Very cunning. I am impressed!

4. What burns me is not that we went to war there. It is that these arrogant men, who will never go on patrol in Iraq, or have to worry about an IED, or whose children will likely never serve, have the nerve to try and play on my sympathies as an American like the strings of a Guitar! I now feel as Hamlet felt as he was played upon by Rosencrans and Guildenstern. If you want to play RTW for real in Iraq, than have the guts to tell the American people, and the fine soldiers, who have to take the brunt of your decisions, the truth. This is a war of aggression, plain and simple. No suit and tie in Washington, or London could convince me otherwise. I know, I am a soldier and have spoken to those who have been there! While a great deal of winning the hearts and minds is going well, we are losing because we do not have enough soldiers present to keep it secure. The Iraqis are not ready,and won't be for sometime! We basically are just going to have to wait it out until they are, or sit back and divide up Iraq into three seperate contries, and then were would you be? That is another thing that Rumsfeld and crew didn't plan for, and still haven't come to grips with. The American people are dreaming if they really believe that we'll be out of there in just a few years. What do they think we are doing there? Only what they are being spoon-fed by this administration.

Sorry, I went on way too long about this, and it is all I am going to say about it. It may be sweet to die for one's counntry, not for a lie.

PS: I love my country, and would be glad to give my life in her defense.
But this.....I'd have to think about it. Rumsfeld, Cheney, President Bush, read my signature quote. Onasander was a wise man.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Alrighty then, If ya'll don't mind an old soldier, who is still in the service of his country, wading in here for a few words.

1. It is the President's descision on who to hire and fire in his cabinet. If a he did that every time that someone politically, or personally attacked one of his cabinet members, he might as well install a revolving door to the breifing room. I am a little disappointed with those Generals that didn't speak up earlier.

2. While I disagree with the timing of this war politically, it is a fact that we are in it. We might as well try to win it, or pack up and go home. I guess what bothers me about Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and the whole lot of them, is the utter hypocrisy of their policies. This is not a war of liberation, a search for WMDs, a counterattack on the Terrorists or any other such causes. These where merely the pretenses (which kept changing almost weekly leading up to the war) for invasion. The Greeks and Romans were masters of this way of building political support for their wars as well. Ring a bell?

3. The primary reasons for this war IMH military opinion are twofold:

a. First, it is an extension of the policies recommended to the former President Bush in the 1990's by none other than the former Secratary of Defense, DicK Cheney, and his humble assistant, Paul Wolfowitz; now a the CEO of the World Bank and a major player in international finance for such things as...oh I don't know - Oil company reasearch and development loans. They both recommended that the United States do whatever it must to prevent the rise of a future competitor anywhere after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is all outlined in the Strategic Planning Guide that was issued to many key players during that administration. )It can be found online) The plan to move on the Gulf region is clearly outlined there. Controlling the oil reserves in this region were mentioned as a means of keeping the lid on the Saudi's dominance of the oil market at the time.

b. Secondly, (please bear with me) a plan has been in motion for some years now to put a pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf through Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Two of the key players involved were Cheveron Corporation, former workplace of, guess who, Condaleza Rice and, who'd have known, Halliburton. (Dick Cheney Should have resigned from the Vice Presidency for this) The only problem was that International financiers, of which one was the World Bank, would not agree to finance the loans due to the presence of the Taliban, and a certain religous fanatic, one Osama Bin Laden. Hmmmm....I guess there was a little problem in Ol'e Bactria? This leads me to my second point. If I were going to get rid of the Taliban in Afghanistan, what more excuse would I need than Osama Bin Laden's attack of the World Trade Center? Hence one invasion of Afghanistan. But wait, there's more.

You guys are all real smart strategists aren't you? If I wanted to keep my little Pipleline construction project hopes from counterattack by my rivals, what better way than a nice little diversion? What better deversion than a War in Iraq? While this was never the said intention of our going there, it certainly has become a reality. Our forces are now "drawing the Terorist attacks away from the United States" says Rumsfeld. Well of course! It stands to reason that they are no longer a threat to my plans in Afghanistan either! Very cunning. I am impressed!

4. What burns me is not that we went to war there. It is that these arrogant men, who will never go on patrol in Iraq, or have to worry about an IED, or whose children will likely never serve, have the nerve to try and play on my sympathies as an American like the strings of a Guitar! I now feel as Hamlet felt as he was played upon by Rosencrans and Guildenstern. If you want to play RTW for real in Iraq, than have the guts to tell the American people, and the fine soldiers, who have to take the brunt of your decisions, the truth. This is a war of aggression, plain and simple. No suit and tie in Washington, or London could convince me otherwise. I know, I am a soldier and have spoken to those who have been there! While a great deal of winning the hearts and minds is going well, we are losing because we do not have enough soldiers present to keep it secure. The Iraqis are not ready,and won't be for sometime! We basically are just going to have to wait it out until they are, or sit back and divide up Iraq into three seperate contries, and then were would you be? That is another thing that Rumsfeld and crew didn't plan for, and still haven't come to grips with. The American people are dreaming if they really believe that we'll be out of there in just a few years. What do they think we are doing there? Only what they are being spoon-fed by this administration.

Sorry, I went on way too long about this, and it is all I am going to say about it. It may be sweet to die for one's counntry, not not for a lie.

PS: I love my country, and would be glad to give my life in her defense.
But this.....I'd have to think about it. Rumsfeld, Cheney, President Bush, read my signature quote. Onasander was a wise man.

Well, it seems we find an other thing in common. We have quite a few (if not all) of the same views.

EDIT: Now these are views, not conspiracy theories

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

While off-topic, I find you theory... unlikely. But that's just me.

[rotorgun]

Simply look the information up online. It is there for all to see. Type Strategic Defense Planning Guide, look for the one authored by Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, and then Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline Project or Afghanistan Oil Pipeline Project and it will amaze you. After this, look at a map, watch Micheal Moore's movie Farenheit 911 (I hate the Liberal b _ _ _ _ _ d myself, but I try to keep an open mind), and then "connect the dots" as so many so called intelligence people like to say. Whalla!

It's not rocket science my boy!

Have a nice day.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Simply look the information up online. It is there for all to see. Type Strategic Defense Planning Guide, look for the one authored by Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, and then Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline Project or Afghanistan Oil Pipeline Project and it will amaze you. After this, look at a map, watch Micheal Moore's movie Farenheit 911 (I hate the Liberal b _ _ _ _ _ d myself, but I try to keep an open mind), and then "connect the dots" as so many so called intelligence people like to say. Whalla!

It's not rocket science my boy!

Have a nice day.

I've got some conspiracy theory movies if you want them (on an other topic)

[solypsist]

http://www.armytimes.com/static.php?f=view.php

A new Army Times poll has 64.3% wanting him out.

[solypsist]

http://www.voltairenet.org/article136827.html

i didnt want to start another thread but felt the images on this page needed to be seen. when discussing how many coalition soldiers died, etc. one tends to forget the other casualties.

[BigTex]

“ Personally I say anything that doesnt physically harm them is ok. Covering the face with cellyphane and pouring water over them was quiet creative,” Yep, all these methods that was used by the Gestapo (S.D.) (included the dog’s one). If you don’t want to be compared with the Nazi, don’t use NAZI techniques.

Yep they sure did. So has every other country in the world at some point. The Nazi's also used handcuffs to arrest people, guess we shouldnt use those. The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.

Using what the nazi's did as a reason to compare the USA to evil is ridiculous. Sometimes coercion of the psychological kind is needed. Often times it has saved many peoples lives, we shouldn't be getting rid of these useful interrogation techniques because some bleeding heart liberal finds them to harsh for their thin skin. We've used them effectively for hundreds of years, not since now have they been deemned evil.

[Hurin_Rules]

We've used them effectively for hundreds of years, not since now have they been deemned evil.

The same was said of slaves prior to 1865.

If you're going to critique someone else's line of argument, you better use pretty airtight ones yourself

[Redleg]

The same was said of slaves prior to 1865.

If you're going to critique someone else's line of argument, you better use pretty airtight ones yourself

Oh but Hurin that has never stopped anyone in the Traven to include yourself. (nor me either)

[Brenus]

“The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.”

Yep, and their loved their children too… And their dogs, Heinrich was a talented pianist etc… We speak here of method of interrogation on people allegedly innocent… Now, if you want to create enemy, just do what you proposed. Big Tex, the Nazi killed 10% of the population of the village where I born, later. Did that stop my Grand-Father to sabotage their trains? No. It just was the biggest recruitment tools given by the Germans to the Partisans

[Redleg]

To those of you complaining that Rumsfeld is trying to minimize and crack down on the officers criticizing him, you might want to note that it is illegal for them to criticize a superior. Also there arent really, "retired" officers/generals, since any of them could be called back to active duty at any point in the future. Regardless of whether they resigned or age, only exception being the dishonorably discharged. So having a non-active general questioning a superior is a bad idea, it insites other to question their superiors and that is not how the an army should work.

I didn't notice this before - until another spotted it - but Jimbob is right - a good commander allows his subordinates to question the validity of his order up to a point. This point often being the decision making point for that order. I sat in many orders briefs as a subordinate commander where I was expect by my commander to ask questions concerning the order, to get clarifications about what was expect of my command, and to point out the weakness in the order that were not included in the brief. The point being is that questioning the orders were expected, just like executing the orders was expected after the discussion and decision was made. A poor commander does not listen to his subordinates when they spot errors in the order.

Retired Generals are often involved in the Military Complex after their service, who best to question the President and Rumsfield about their decisions concerning the military? Most of these men served in commands of a division or higher which often makes thier comments relative to what is happening.

I detest the retire generals who do this questioning for political gain - but admire the few who are doing it out of legimate concern for the men and women in uniform.