Results 1 to 30 of 62

Thread: Rumsfeld gets Bashed

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

    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.
    Last edited by rotorgun; 04-28-2006 at 03:38.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

  2. #2
    German Enthusiast Member Alexanderofmacedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Where Columbus condemned the natives
    Posts
    3,124

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

    Quote Originally Posted by 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 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
    Last edited by Alexanderofmacedon; 04-18-2006 at 01:11.


  3. #3
    Member Member Alexander the Pretty Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    4,979

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

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

  4. #4
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Post Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

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

    It's not rocket science my boy!

    Have a nice day.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

  5. #5
    German Enthusiast Member Alexanderofmacedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Where Columbus condemned the natives
    Posts
    3,124

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

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

    It's not rocket science my boy!

    Have a nice day.
    I've got some conspiracy theory movies if you want them (on an other topic)


  6. #6
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

    877 Active Duty Generals or Equivalent.

    How long do they last as a General... they have to climb the command ladder and if they don't pass each rung timely enough I take it they will never get to General... but even going up at each stage would take at least 15 years? So say they get to General at between 40 and 45... how many years left of service do they have 10/15 years?

    After that say the majority do retire at 55 after 10 to 15 years as a general. I assume most of them will get to 80 or 85 as they will have access to good mediciene, plenty of money and have an above average lifestyle. That is 25-30 years as a retired general... compared with 10 to 15 years as an Active Duty one... so you can expect about 2 retired generals for every active one if not a larger ration.

    So there should be 1500 or so retired Generals.

    So 1 out of 250 have publically made their feelings known on the issue. I wonder how many more haven't?
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  7. #7
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    877 Active Duty Generals or Equivalent.

    How long do they last as a General... they have to climb the command ladder and if they don't pass each rung timely enough I take it they will never get to General... but even going up at each stage would take at least 15 years? So say they get to General at between 40 and 45... how many years left of service do they have 10/15 years?
    15 years is a tad early. That is the normal range for promotion to Lietuant Colonel. Most officers that I know of that make General using do so after 20 years in the service. Not always since promotion to General is not dependent upon normal promotion schemes.

    After that say the majority do retire at 55 after 10 to 15 years as a general. I assume most of them will get to 80 or 85 as they will have access to good mediciene, plenty of money and have an above average lifestyle. That is 25-30 years as a retired general... compared with 10 to 15 years as an Active Duty one... so you can expect about 2 retired generals for every active one if not a larger ration.
    This sounds about right though.

    So there should be 1500 or so retired Generals.

    So 1 out of 250 have publically made their feelings known on the issue. I wonder how many more haven't?
    Most I have come to beleive. Especially those who decide to stay the hell out of the political arenea.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  8. #8
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

    So, to sum up: Rumsfeld was exaggerating/misleading again?
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  9. #9
    karoshi Senior Member solypsist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    New York New York
    Posts
    9,020

    Default Re: Rumsfeld get's Bashed

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

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

  10. #10
    Piprökande Nåjd Member Bulawayo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    68

    Default Sv: Rumsfeld gets Bashed

    Rotorgun:

    Does this article sum up your information well?

    I am not sure, but I think so.

  11. #11
    Member Member KafirChobee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Local Yokel, USA
    Posts
    1,020

    Default Re: Rumsfeld gets Bashed

    Good article, Bulawayo. I mentioned "PNAC" some time back. It was basically ignored.

    Other members: Chairmen; Wm. Kristol, Thos. Donnelly, Lewis (Scooter) Libby
    Members; Peter Rodman (Asst. Sec. of Def. for Int'l Sec.), Dov S. Zackheim (Comptroller in DoD), Robert B. Zoellick (Deputy Sec. of State), John R. Bolton (US Ambassador to UN), Randy Schueneman (was President of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", an organization funded by defense and security contractors - the committee included other PNAC members), Stephen Cambone (UnderSecretary of Defense for Intelligence), and R. James Woolsey (former CIA Director, now VP at Booz Allen Hamilton - one of the largest Iraq contractors). This but to name a few. The founders and chairmen (btw) for PNAC were Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld (beginning in 1992).

    The agenda was - justifying an invasion of Iraq. It was a pre-drawn conclusion that it would occur after the Supreme Court elected GW Bush President (but, that's another story).
    To forgive bad deeds is Christian; to reward them is Republican. 'MC' Rove
    The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    ]Clowns to the right of me, Jokers to the left ... here I am - stuck in the middle with you.

    Save the Whales. Collect the whole set of them.

    Better to have your enemys in the tent pissin' out, than have them outside the tent pissin' in. LBJ

    He who laughs last thinks slowest.

  12. #12
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Default Re: Sv: Rumsfeld gets Bashed

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulawayo
    Rotorgun:

    Does this article sum up your information well?

    I am not sure, but I think so.
    I am not sure if this is a double post as I sent out a reply once.(I might have clicked the wrong confounded icon) Thanks for responding with such an article. I think it clearly sheds new light on my premise that the "War on Terror" is not being fought for the reasons many are being led to believe. As for an American version of the "Pax Romana", I would think that it would apply in a sense, considering the ramifications of the article and my previously mentioned Strategic Defence Planning Guide. It is quite obviuos that the plans are quite similar.

    As to the idea that the UK and US are making a grab for the dwindling oil reserves, It could be true if the statistics are accurate in the article. Another possibility is that the large oil consortiums and international finance organizations involved want to monopolize the fast growing Asian oil market. The Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussien in Iraq, and the Islamic extremist government of Iran all stand in the way of such an economic venture. While I appluade the downfall of all such dictatorial regimes, I hardly think it worth the price of a Gotterdamerung of biblical proportions in order to achieve it. As it has been said: "Two wrongs don't make a right."

    Speaking of the idea that the attacks of 911 were deliberately allowed to succeed, I certainly hope that it is not the case. I cannot believe that an American administration would allow such an attack on their population to occur just to justify an offensive in the Persian Gulf. If such a thing were ever proved, God help these people, for there will be a hanging in Washington D.C. I know that many believe that F.D.R. may have knowingly allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor without sending a proper warning to the Commanders there to shock isolationist Americans into action during WWII. Even if true, this was a military target, not the World Trade Center. To allow the deaths of over 3000 civilians on your soil just to start a war would be the epitome of criminality. I hope that the article is wrong.

    Thanks again for your thoughtfulness in posting this site for us. I am glad that there are many people in the Org. that are first class thinkers who can make an intelligent arguement when discussing something that is so volatile.

    God save us all from corporate greed.

    PS edit: I apologize Kafir, I must have missed your reference to the PNAC. It was very astute of you to bring it up. INteresting list of members, don't you think?
    Last edited by rotorgun; 04-28-2006 at 00:19.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

  13. #13
    Awaiting the Rapture Member rotorgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not in Kansas anymore Toto....
    Posts
    971

    Post Re: Rumsfeld gets Bashed

    Sorry to be a little late out of the barn with these. Here are some sites that have information concerning this ongoing debate over the morality of the current Anglo/American strategy in SW Asia. While off topic concerning Rumsfeld's bashing, I think that they might be of interest to the inquiring minds among us. They are related in some ways to the thread.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/

    http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

    http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEP...SAZERB/412.htm

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html

    I hope these are helpful in helping one to make an informed decision. I think that all will see just how much is at stake for the key players. I also read a great book, Crude Politics, which exposes the truth about how the Bush administration's oil cronny buddies have manipulated the polocies and strategies taken in Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban-all because of a desire to build a pipeline there to dominate the Asian oil market with Caspian Sea oil.
    Last edited by rotorgun; 05-02-2006 at 23:17.
    Rotorgun
    ...the general must neither be so undecided that he entirely distrusts himself, nor so obstinate as not to think that anyone can have a better idea...for such a man...is bound to make many costly mistakes
    Onasander

    Editing my posts due to poor typing and grammer is a way of life.

  14. #14
    karoshi Senior Member solypsist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    New York New York
    Posts
    9,020

    Default Re: Rumsfeld gets Bashed

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO