Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld Stepping Down
macinrack writes to tell us that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon. Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld.
Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
Good news: Rummy steps down.
Bad news: Replaced by former head of CIA Gates
captcha: eighth
To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)
He blows massive chunks at the entire "making peace after war" part though, and that is the part that gets your name in the history books....
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
...not as Sec Def though.
This hit the frontpage of reddit, slashdot and digg all within 20 minutes of it being announced. Fastest I've ever seen.
Eitherway, this had to happen though and probably would have happened if the Democrats hadn't won the house.
MABASPLOOM!
"Sorry, Don, you go to the polls with the voters you have. They're not the voters you might want or wish to have at a later time."
- Dubya
The democrats just keep getting what they want. I wonder if thats really a good thing?
This has to be some of the worst timing for any policy decision. If only he would have resigned a few days ago (and Bush not said he was going to stick around to the end), the Republicans would have had a real chance.
... last week would have been the perfect time to finally accept his prior offers and for Bush to say "hey, we've made some mistakes in Iraq, it's time we all sit down together and figure out how to do it right" instead of his continued stubborn insistence on staying the course and doing things his way.
Sure, he may not have specifically offered until today, but he has offered his resignation at least twice in the past
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Bringing new meaning to the (Red White and) Blue Screen of Death!
Oh wait, what? Bob Gates?
/Nevermind, then.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
nt
don't let the door hit you on the way out...
I, for one, welcome anyone else that might replace him.
Fuck, at this point, I could just about support Kissinger!
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Glad someone wrote in to quote the headline on CNN.com: "President Bush announced today that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, is stepping down. Bush said he is nominating former CIA chief Robert Gates, who headed that agency from 1991 until 1993, to become the next secretary of defense." I feel like I read something worthwhile.
I happened to catch Fox News about 5 minutes before Bush's announcement began. They showed one of teh Fox News corrospondents standing outside the White House, talking about the impending announcement. If you listened really carefully, you could hear people in the background chanting "Na-na-nahh-na, na-na-nahh-na, hey, hey, hey...goodbye"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
There are plenty of political websites for you to get your rocks off on.
Lets stick with technology related news.
Rumsfeld's resignation was timed such that Bush can force the nomination of his replacement through a Republican Senate. If he'd waited much longer, the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats and Bush might actually have to pick someone good.
Some things the good old boys network can't prevent. I'm sure he's in for a cushy life now, even though they couldn't save him there'll be board memberships and "consulting" jobs flowing in for the rest of his life.
I guess he's at least willing to do that with his own job...
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
This has certainly been an interesting 24 hours. I wonder if some
of the members of our current administration have heard the knock
of reality on the door. I can only hope so.
All that hand waving didn't help Ronnie ...
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
After the Army Times called for Rumsfeld to step down, the White House could no longer ignore criticisms of the SecDef. That, and a Democratic Congress could very well "blackmail" the White House with legislative stoppages until Rumsfeld resigns. Rumsfeld was good at waging the initial war, but was simply unable to adapt to the insurgency or maintaining an extended peace.
I knew the GOP would offer up a sacrifical lamb for their thrashing yesterday, but damn - that was fast.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The timing says everything. With the potential for his agenda to be advanced now gone, he cuts and runs. A good man would have stayed on to finish the job properly no matter how stressful. Afterall, we were led to believe that the war was at least partly for the benefit of the Iraqi people, who are clearly still suffering. However this poor excuse for a man failed to give even a cursory look to the troubled history of Iraq and the enormous problems an invasion would unleash. Either that or this is all very intentional... divide and conquer, and everything.
Cut & run...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/arti
See subject.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
I seriously doubt that this will make any difference. The only chance that Iraq has of being solved without it falling to Al Qaeda (or Iran), would be for us to put in 500-600K troops. And if W. was not bright enough to put in 250K troops AND rebuild the nation quickly, then I seriously doubt that he has enough character or intelligence to do what is right, now.
All in all, this will go down as the textbook way to not fight a war in American military schooling (and probably others).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Its astonishing how you can ignore historical experience, common sense and repeatedly be so utterly wrong and yet not get fired when you are one of Georges buddies.
A quick glance at some of the stuff Donald came out with makes you seriously question his mental state.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Who knew the New American Century was actually only six years long?
i bet this guys motto was: "If all else fails, use C4"
Bob Gates was heavily involved in the treasonous Iran/Contra affair.
The names may change, but the characters remain the same.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_16.htm
Which war did Rumsfeld help win? Afghanistan? The Taliban are retaking cities everyday. Iraq? You know that more US soldiers died after the declaration of "victory" than during the so called "war" ?
You think this because of a story they posted? The remarks are biased, not the report BTW: That is the worst stereo-type I have heard throughout this whole midterm
Bush has a new puppet
So, uh, wait a second. You're saying that Slashdot should report that Rumsfeld HASN'T stepped down?
I know you might want it to be so, but facts are not a partisan matter.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
This happens only after Republican blood was spilled in the election. The blood of thousands of soldiers spilled on the battlefield didn't count for squat.
In order to assign more meaningful names to the agencies of the federal government, I make a motion that the Dept. of Defense be called the Dept. of Offense and the Dept. of Homeland Security be called the Dept. of Defense.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure that this new guy is going to be any better. Why does a former CIA man make a better Secretary than..hmm...I dunno....a former GENERAL?
WOOOOO HOOOOO!!!!!
The real menace within the DOD is Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of all of the USA's global imperialist schemes since at least the Carter years.
Unfortunately, last year someone decided he was of better use as president of the World Bank than Deputy Secretary of Defense.
I read recently that simulations done under the Clinton administration found that an invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "nation-building" would requite sustained troop levels of 400,000. Rumsfeld, completely lacking any understanding of the middle east, the culture, and peoples, figured we can do it on the cheap. Alas it tis not so. Kind of reminds me of when Brutus assasinated Caesar, he figured the people would be happy and cheer him. I honestly think Rumsfeld thought the Iraqi people would support him as Brutus thought.
Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).
As opposed to which popular war?
Gimme a break. Go back and learn something about strategy, and try to write a sentence.
waah waah!
Buther of Baghdad is out.
Being "tough and ruthless" in a democracy basically means you lie, cheat and steal. Rummy had all these qualities. Never having seen a day of combat in his life, despite being in the Navy, he goes on to... become the architect of an invasion?
He's been described as the "biggest obstacle in the fight on terrorism", despite his lies and his approval of torture. Maybe real success would tear into his oil or weapons profiteering (courtesy of Bechtel and its lucrative Iraq reconstruction projects, its ties to the bin ladens, etc. etc.). Or his fighting the supposed pandemic of bird-flu with his association with Gilead Sciences (a pharmeceutical that just happens to have a treatment).
I hope to never see his smug face on the news again.
Your mileage may vary.
http://www.bitworksmusic.com/
BitWorksMusic.com -- odd tunes for odd times
I guess he can go and shake hands with Saddam Hussein one more time. "We had a lot of fun times, huh? Too bad you used our gas on civilians. Perhaps if it'd be Palestinian civilians you were killing with our hardware you might have got away with it..."
Please, that is the least insightful post under this entire thread - pure flamebait.
In fact, there are tons of conservatives here on Slashdot. Just not very many social conservatives or authoritarians. Most of them are of a more libertarian bent.
In any case, I know plenty of conservatives who think it was way past time for Rumsfeld to go. Including my friend who worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority and US Embassy in Iraq for a year and a half (and just went back over there working as a liaison for the British government).
I'm a moderate Democrat, but I'll trust my friend's judgment on Rumsfeld over your flamebait any day.
It took a bit longer than anyone would have guessed, but at long last everyone in this photo has retired. I bet there will be some Kurdish street parties tonight.
Suck it, Dems
Back to foxnews.com with you -- oh crap, it's on there too!
Why go for Bush Senior's man, when you could go for Henry Kissinger? He's the right man for our time, again.
(Well, I think it's funny.)
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Rumsfield had little to do with the actual planning of the intial attack. That was the US of A military with superior power doing what they were trained to do. All in all, Rumsfield did not have an opportunity to mess it up. The problem came in when, a person with NO military, strategy, or even spy training or talent decided that HE knew best. On the next admin more of this will come out (bush is covering up everything at this time). At that time, hopefully, a number of people such as Rumsfield will do time.
Gates has two years in the Air Force. I think they should have chosen someone who has a lot of experience in land warfare. Someone who understands what would be required for victory in Iraq. A military leader instead of a bureaucrat.
News for non-retards. Stuff that matters to intelligent, rational people...like non-NeoCons.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Well...maybe if Rumsfeld had studied harder in school...
...because I don't want ASS PRINTS ON MY DOOR!
(obligatory Futurama quote)
Libertas in infinitum
Standing down?
It's better than nothing I suppose.
Led away in handcuffs to stand trial for his part in crimes against humanity would have been a lot better.
Robert Gates quote from a PBS interview, speaking about the first Iraq war ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/ gates/2.html ):
Q: If you gave yourself a luxury of hindsight is there anything you would do that you didn't do to try and alter that ending of the war?
Gates: I do not believe I would have made decisions or recommendations differently in terms of how we dealt with the end of the war. All of the alternatives to the way things turned out in my judgement would have resulted in the American troops still being in Iraq today. And I believe that the American people would not tolerate that. We accomplished the objectives we set for ourselves. Our objectives do not include the total destruction of Iraq it did not include the total destruction of the Iraqi Army. We wanted to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, we didn't want Syria taking a piece here and the Iranians taking a piece here and somebody else taking a piece there. We wanted the territorial integrity of Iraq. We believe that enough army divisions were left for the regular army to be able to protect Iraq from intrusions into its territory. But its ability to invade its neighbours have been destroyed--the Republican Guards. So I think you have to keep coming back to what the objectives were in this war. Why we were there in the first place and not over time began to expand those objectives in retrospect, and those of expansion would have resulted in, in what I believe would have been a quagmire.
Loser....Loserrr.....Loserrrrr! God, that felt good! Rumsfeld should have gone for such an obstinate insistence on cutting other departments, countries, and the UN out of the post-war reconstruction and yet carried it out with the utmost incompetence by not sending enough troops, giving them with an incomplete set of tools, and then awarding no bid contracts to private contractors to assist in the security which cost more to the American taxpayer.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Don't let the insurgency hit you in the ass on the wa... oh.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
What lead you to believe otherwise?
My other question is: How did your post get moderated insightful when it's not actually true?
About damn time. It's unfortunate that it took the Republicans to LOSE A FOOTHOLD in order to make this guy do something he should have done a year ago when people were calling for his oust.
Now that his boss no longer has his iron grip, he's running because he knows he'll get the boot eventually.
No, don't quit when you realize you've made bad decisions costing American's their lives. Quit when you'll be forced to. Don't take responsibility until you MUST. What a disgrace. Democracy has prevailed here. So long...
Katherine Harass lost....
Sick Santorum lost....
And finally....Donald Dumbsfeld is fired
World Peace, At Last.
Sure sure, run away just as we get the chance to ask some real questions.
Seems to me like he's just trying to hide. Cut and run.
Fact is, he'll still have to answer subpeonas.
I agree, to a point, the timing to coincide with the GOP losses indicate, more than regret that his execution of Iraqi Freedom, but an attempt to duck a real grilling. He won't have a lot of people running interference for him now. This is going to really isolate Bush. It should be a very interesting 2 years.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
RUMSFELD DOWN! Onward to Mordor!
--
make install -not war
"This only happend because the Democrats won the house."
Actually, I'd guess it happened because the new Senate may end up with a clear Democratic majority.
By letting Rumsfeld go now and appointing a successor immediately, Bush has a very good chance to get his appointee confirmed in the current, Republican-controlled Senate. (The Democrats could stall the confirmation until the end of the current session, but they wouldn't gain from it. It would be bad press, and Bush would just make a recess appointment between sessions anyway.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Um, it was pretty bloody clear right from the word go that it was going to end up in a guerrilla warfare situation and a decades long occupation. The idea that it would be all over in a year or two was utterly utterly naive. More, the unwillingless to listen to an ally who has spent the last 40 years managing a situation just like that is stupidity.
In conclusion, either the man is a complete dolt or has a whole other agenda.
Deleted
Texas Monthly's cover story this month was a good profile on Gates an his work as head of Texas A&M. See www.texasmonthly.com.
Say again why it is that you are here?
Al Qaida.
We have now crossed into realm that ANY military action will no longer be tolerated by the American people. We have decided that ANY losses are too much.
We have made military confict political suicide for the party in power, and now, if that decision ever has to come again, good luck on making the right decision.
Careful what you wish for libs.
Now Nancy Pelosi and company can actually find out what it is like to be responsible for the control they wield, they just wont get roasted in the press like the repubs. You know, like hypicritical Pastor bad, Rep sending sexual come ons to pages bad, blow job in WhiteHouse....pass.
...of the election results. Now that the dems have the house, they have the power of subpoena. Put simply, that means they can start actually investigating the shenanigans that have been going on the past 6 years, and I'd be willing to bet that Rumsfeld has some pretty ugly skeletons in his closet. He's just getting out of the spotlight before he's put in court.
Mind you, I agree that any sensible projection showed that the dems were easily going to win the house (it's the senate that was, and still is, a close call), and so it would have made more sense to resign earlier. That said, I'm not surprised that the administration was in denial about their impending electoral defeat, as people tend to deny things which they do not like until reality forces them to accept it (just look at the mess in Iraq...).
what impressed you:
- that he created saddam
- that he was a good-ol-boy that had a history in the oil wars
- that he was not opposed to a little torture
Even as cynical as I am about Karl Rove and the Bush Administration's disdain for the intelligence of the American people, Rumsfeld's resignation, and more specifically the timing of it, represents a new low for that crew. What, they think we can't figure out that they are trying (in vain) to distract the American people from the taking of both houses of Congress by Democrats, by placing a new news item at the top of CNN's Web page?
Rumsfeld was incompetent, and could very well face investigation and even charges, as could other senior members of the Administration. But don't read any more into today's announcement than crass political strategy. If Rumsfeld was unacceptable as Secretary of Defense today, he was at least as unacceptable last week, last month, and last year. Having this happen today is blatant and insulting. {Prof. Jonathan}
Insults are always intelligent and rational.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
If the problems in Iraq are primarily due to Rumsfeld's tactical and strategic flaws, then this will help. If the war is a problem of the world not conforming to the beliefs of the NeoCon segment of the Administration (and the President's lack of questioning of the beliefs or his insistence on them), then Rumsfeld's resignation won't really help - if no one in power wishes to hear or deal with bad news, then nothing any Secretary of Defense says or does will be welcome.
"News for non-retards. Stuff that matters to intelligent, rational people...like non-NeoCons."
I've only ever encountered one neocon on Slashdot, and it is been ages since he has posted. None have posted yet in this Rumsfeld news item.
Where were you when the voynix came?
My guess is Bush threw Rumsfeld to the wolves to appease Nancy Pelosi, but I could be wrong.
I spent more than nine years in the military, most of it infantry - I was a professional bullet stopper. During the first Gulf War we walked across the border with 410,000 troops and are now operating with a bit more than a third of that. The only way to win a war is to win it - otherwise let's get the hell out and quit sacrificing our young men and women in an unwinnable conflict.
I supported the war based on the information that was provided - and that information turned out to be a bit less than accurate. Right now we either need to win the war or get the hell out and quit sacrificing troops when there aren't enough to effect any real change in Iraq.
Right or wrong, we're neck-deep in it now. Let's either win this damn thing or get the hell out of it. We can impeach Bush later if it seems appropriate.
And it seems appropriate.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Bush knew several days ago that Rumsfeld was going to resign. He stated exactly the opposite. It's yet another lie from this administration. Thank god this one didn't kill anyone.
- Walsh Iran / Contra Report
Developers: We can use your help.
"Bush has a new puppet"
Uh. No shit? That statement is meangingless. As if anyone on a presidential cabinet is not a "puppet". Come on. It doesn't matter who the president is, or whether you agree with them or not; anyone on a presidential cabinet is going to be a puppet to the president.
Are you implying that, say, William Cohen was NOT Clinton's puppet? I find that absurd.
I'm not a fan of Rummy or Bush, but I find your rhetoric without merit. If you are trying to knock Bush or Rumsfeld, then you have failed. Try using a statement with meaning, rather than attempting to degrade with useless buzzwords that apply across the board.
Or do you honestly believe that Rumsfeld was the ONLY member of a cabinet to be a "puppet"?
Any information may be true or incorrect depending on your perception of said information
"...mostly because he usually tells it like it is even when how it is isn't what people wish they were hearing."
Rumsfeld doesn't "tell it like it is", he uses condescension and (indirect) insults to avoid answering questions he doesn't like. *That* is why people don't like him.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
Oh, it's better than that. Bush said last week that no matter what happens, Rumsfeld would stay on until the end of his term (in 2008). Today was a huge flip-flop.
Isn't Bolton only a temp, because Bush posted him during a senate break, because he couldn't get the votes he needed to make Bolton the permanent ambassador to the UN? Looks like Bush is losing the Senate and I don't think that bodes well for Bolton or any more of Bush's high-handed picks.
As for Gates. They'll probably try to run that through before the losers are out of the Senate.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
tho thilly thereth no texth...
I think the problem is that some Iraqi people have a different agenda from Rumsfeld. Participation is happening but on a whole number of different agendas. Some people are participating in the building of Rumsfeld's vision, and some on completely different visions. Hence the conflict.
Winning a military victory over Saddam's army was only the start, not all of it and I think that's where a lot of people got it wrong. They say generals always fight the last war, but the liberation of France in 1944 was several wars ago....
I was just thinking that, now that the republican monopoly is over (for now anyway), a good step two would be to start trying to get rid of the pesky USA PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act.. but Rumsfeld stepping down works as well. Onward, to step three!
The obvious answer now is no different than it was 6.5 years ago.
Repeat after me: There we no Weapons of Mass Destruction! It was a lie then. It remains a blatant lie today.
Second:
"Underserved flak"? This coward who used the blood of other people's children to assert his manhood long after his opportunity had passed, managed to destroy a military force that had already demonstrated its inferiority to the US military machine in 1992. No, sir, he deserves all the flak coming his way and more.
Third:
"Unjustified investigations"? Are you insane? Why did all those people, on both sides die in Iraq? Why is Iraq falling into the guagmire of civil war, just as the critics of his bullshit plan predicted? Where is Osama? Where is the connection between Osama and Saddam?
Oh, sure, you can claim he made the world safe by taking down a dictator. Just try telling that to the Iraq people as they bury more people in a single day than Saddam killed.
Oh, one more thing. Rummy did a GREAT JOB telling the world that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you better get some quick like North Korea, or you'll end up like Iraq. See Iran for more on this subject.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
AIPAC, which Rumsfeld has strong links to, was. AIPAC is the second most powerful lobby in Washington behind the AARP, and is composed of pro-Israel hawks and zionist Christians. Wolfowitz, Perle, and many other members of the Bush administration are deeply linked to them as well. AIPAC represents hard-line Israeli interests. (Incidentally they're also the reason why you never hear criticism of Israel in the United States of America, because they actively and tirelessly lobby government, academia, and the media to suppress our freedom to speak honestly about and discuss openly the situation there. Their favorite tactic against people who make outrageous statements like "Palestinians are people too, and they deserve to live in peace," is to call them "anti-Semites" and target them for character assassination.)
r wp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf>
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002 that "the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must. Inspections and inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome easily inspections and inspectors."
It's overstating it a little to say that we invaded Iraq on AIPAC's orders. There were other parties who went along, but AIPAC was centrally involved. And what AIPAC wants from Washington, it gets. This despite a huge portion of the American public who opposed the invasion and even despite American Jewish opinion, 52-62% of whom opposed the invasion.
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, the giants of international relations (they're like the Freud and Jung of the discipline), published a remarkable paper on the subject last March: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/
Essentially what we've been doing in Iraq is fighting a proxy war on Israel's behalf (on behalf of Likud and other Israeli hawks, that is). It's also why Bush started making noises at Syria recently before things really started to fall apart in Iraq, because they're next on AIPAC's list. Iran comes after that.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
If my dog chases a car, I'm pretty sure he has no idea what he will do with it if he catches it. Rumsfeld caught the car.
After the American debacle in Viet Nam and the Soviet disaster in Afghanistan, there's no excuse for not knowing that an invasion doesn't end the fighting. Rumsfeld went into Iraq in spite of being told by his generals that they needed many more troops to do the job right. Clueless. Criminally clueless.
And wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that he had no intention of quitting and that Bush had given him his full support and would decide if and when Rumsfeld should leave? Oh yeah, here it is.
So let's see, first we lie about the invasion of Iraq being tied to the September 11th attacks. Then we lie that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Then we lied that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. Throw in that we lied about not being the world's policeman, that we wouldn't be involved in nation building, that we would hold it to the Saudis in regards to our supply of oil, that the government isn't reading people's emails or searching their homes without warrants, and now this, and you have an entire administration built on lies.
Unfortunately, even with the Democrats taking control of the House, they've already said they don't have the balls to impeach the liar so we're stuck with another two years worth of lies.
yay
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Oh, right. It's a contrary opinion. Now this, this post right here that you are reading, could be a troll. But not the parent. _____________________ Think. Then type.|
Any information may be true or incorrect depending on your perception of said information
But was not accepted. This time it was.
I for one am looking forward to Rummy's presentation with the Medal of Freedom and the his presidential pardon "even though he committed no crime."
If they try to ram anything through the Senate in the 6 weeks they have left, we'll filibuster it. Maybe if we get really lucky they'll pull that "nuclear option" bullshit now and erase the option of filibuster just in time for us to take over the majority. That will make bringing Bush to justice all the speedier.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Well, there was, but not the one we all are thinking of. 6.5 years ago was roughly May 8th, 2000.
Seriously, we managed to "defeat" a 3rd world army that had been under economic sanctions for years.
How much "strategy" does that take? Particularly with our weapons.
His whole "strategy" is "keep dropping bombs until we drop the right bomb on the right place at the right time". Go check the new sites. Find the LAST time we dropped any bombs on Iraq. Was it a year ago? A month ago? A week ago? A day ago? An hour ago?
Just a quick search shows us bombing them on 27 October 2006.
And yet our troops keep being killed.
Rumsfeld is not "Good at war, bad at peace". Rumsfeld is bad at war and bad at peace. Rumsfeld cannot tell the difference between war and peace. And Rumsfeld doesn't care.
One horseman down, three to go.
The U.S. abides by the concept of "civilian supremacy," meaning the civilians have ultimate control over the military. According to the laws on the books, you can't be Secretary of Defense unless you have been out of uniform for over ten years. Thus, Generals aren't legally eligible to be SecDef unless they've been retired for over ten years, i.e. a civilian.
This was the reason Colin Powell became SecState instead of SecDef, because the ten-year rule made it illegal for Powell to be SecDef. It's the same reason Wes Clark, Shinseki, and others cannot legally be SecDef for a very long time yet. Wes Clark can run for president (just as people wanted Powell to run in 1996), but he can't be SecDef until after 2010. Shinseki can't be SecDef until after 2013.
The Joos run everything! The Joos control the media! The Joos control our government! The Joos are responsible for fluoridating our drinking water and contaminating our precious bodily fluids!
The only thing the Joos don't run is the UN, which is why the UN today is staunchly anti-Israel and supports those who have pledged to work towards its destruction.
ZOMFG teh Democrats winzorzed! I gots to fleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Listen you damned republi-troll, get back here and answer these subpoenas for us, K?
This sig will self destruct in 5 seconds.
Instead of Baptist vs. Methodist, think Catholic vs. Protestant. Then think 30 Years' War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Year_War
There's probably better analogies, and let's hope Iraq doesn't take 30 years.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Gotta love that tagging!! At least it was not "yes, no, maybe" this time :o)
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
I think he's made great strides in transforming our military, against a massive entrenched beaucracy.
Being independently wealthy, he didn't need the job, and was free to say or do what he felt was right.
As SecDef, he's right up there with Cap Weinberger.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
While there is still a ways to go, the US Military (and most other Western militaries) are in the process of doing just that.
Google for the term "strategic corporal" for some interesting reading.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
...to replace Rumsfeld. That would have sent a strong message that the administration believes it's time to push AIPAC down a well.
Go back further, to the early 60s, to get the full flavor of this "gent".
He is part of the criminal shadow government of wet work spooks and blood profiteers who decided they knew better than the US people, and helped bring about "regime change" back then..He is a very dangerous person and should have been put in jail for life a long time ago, but we never had a real investigation about that hit other than jim garrison's work.
Anyone read Bob Woodward's latest book? Sheesh, this resignation (or push) has come far too late . Iraq is in meltdown, Shia militias allowed to join the police and Baghdad riddled with these 'police mandated' death squads taking revenge on Sunnis (Saddam is a Sunni). An ordinary MP in Baghdad needs 50-100 bodyguards and a bunch of armoured cars to move 1/2 mile in the city.
Anybody with half a brain (and here I exclude Dubya and Tonee...) could have seen 'democracy' in Iraq was not a viable proposition - at least not on the basis that Dubya and Tonee envisaged it. What if 'free' elections had lead to radical mullahs taking over as in Iran? What? We're going to meddle in the process to stop that from happening? Where was the data showing such a scenario was not a possibility? And in Baghdad, there is a radicalised politician, the Finance minister, with his own private army the eponymous Mahdi army, funded by corrupt siphoning of US reconstruction monies. To which a politically expedient blind eye has been turned, mostly by Rumsfeld.
What a catastrophe the guy has been.
Blackadder: Percy, this is a very difficult situation.
Percy: Yes, my lord.
Blackadder: Someone's for the chop. You or me in fact.
Percy: Ah yes.
Blackadder: Let's face facts Percy....it's you!
It may be a silly piece of paper to you, but it's the U.S. Constitution to the rest of us. We have declarations of war for good reasons, like how to know when it's over. But I guess that's the point of undeclared war -- perpetual sacrifice, continuous casualties, being told to "get over it" and just go along. In fact, being told to "get over it" is getting kind of old to me . . .
I am not a crackpot.
Recently, the US military released a major leader of the insurgents at the request of the Iraqi puppet premier/head thug . It was a very bad military decision. So bad in fact, it must have come from Bush not Rumsfield. It will cost many US lives and prolong our presence in the country. I suspect he left for that and similar decisions; not from media pressure.
In other news Israel and Syria are both preparing for full scale war perhaps as soon as ten months. The shrillness of the soon to be speaker of the house will assure that America is not prepared for it or worse. We should be positioning several tank divisions near the border with the call up (recruitment?) of at least another 100,000 to 500,000 soldiers. Taking out Syria would be the next step towards diminishing Iran's influence. But again we are not prepared (both militarily nor is the US public prepared).
Back to building that nuclear fallout shelter...
The parent post is totally right on the money. Deputy Secretaries seem to be much more influential that most people like to think. Wolfowitz is a total war hawk and it was because of his viewpoints that put Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz at odds with Powell/Armitage. IMO Rumsfeld is more of a shrewd business man who was only following the president's policies. However, those policies were strongly enforced if not also influenced by Wolfowitz's policies.
The parent also makes a subtle point. A person does not need to be in a position if he already has the ear of the President. Current "unofficial" advisers such as Bush 1.0 (his daddy) and Newt Gingrich are people who make me concerned.
Well, Rummy's runnin'
...
Now to get Shrubby to skedaddle
Consider the equivalent situation in politics. According to several in-depth reports (notably from "Frontline" at PBS), Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the White House (with the exception of Colin Powell) completely screwed up the post-war occupation of Iraq. Rumsfeld himself intervened in several important decisions and overruled the suggestions of senior commanders in the field.
Who pays the price? Nearly 3000 American soldiers died, and 50,000 soldiers are wounded.
Though Rumsfeld was fired today, he will still live well on his multi-million-dollar corporate pension. Yet, how will we restore the lives of 3000 dead soldiers and 50,000 severely wounded soldiers?
Good deal. And Rumsfeld resigning is way better news than moonbat Pelosi running the House. God help us all.....
The even sadder fact is that it takes thousands of soldiers and innocents dieing before anyone gets off their ass and votes intelligently.
To be honest, his strategy for initially winning the war was really damn good. He is honestly a man I would want leading out troops in a traditional war. (minus the body armor stupidity...)
I'm curious what strategy you are referring to.
Tommy Franks had a strategy for defeating the Iraqi army. But any person who was thinking with his head instead of his glands understood the military dimension of the problem was far larger than defeating an army. It's depressing to consider all the completely predictable things that have happened in the post invasion phase, for which we had absolutely no plan in place.
The administration paid some lip service to the idea that the road to victory might include some surprises, but they did nothing concrete to prepare for completely predictable and likely occurances, much less the unexpected. In fact, they attacked the character and patriotism of anybody who had the temerity to suggest that more was involved in victory than destroying a rather rag-tag army, dancing in the streets, and a speedy exit leaving a grateful populace and friendly government in place.
General Shinseki lost his job just for saying we needed more troops to establish order in the post-invasion period. Paul O'Neill, the Treasury secretary, lost his job for saying that the total cost of war and reconstruction would be in the billions. Those of us citizens who raised the "q" word were castigated as unpatriotic people who wanted the terrorists to kill Americans.
There was no real plan for victory in Iraq, there is still no real plan for victory in Iraq. I've read the administration's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq", and while it has some good points, what it is is unfortunately lacking is an actual strategy. It's the same story as when we were thinking about going in: there were things we wanted to happen, but no critical assessment of what was needed to make those things happen. Nor was there any consideration of what to do if they didn't happen. How can anything like this be called a "strategy"?
In the absence of strategy, what we are left with is trying like hell and hoping for some good luck. While these are elements of any victory in a tough struggle, waiting to see what the enemy will try and then reacting is not a strategy. It is sticking out our nose and inviting the enemy to punch it any time he wants.
How could Rumsfeld have been trapped into such a hopeless course? Rumsfeld is not a stupid man (nor is the President). He's worse than stupid: he's arrogant. The dictionary defines arrogance "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others." Another definition of arrogance is "an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions". Notice the common use of "assumption". Arrogance is a failure to admit your potential weaknesses. If you can't admit your weaknesses, you can't plan to work around them. If you don't plan to work around them, you don't have an effective strategy.
Case in point: the whole doctrine the Bush administration has about force restructuring. There's good stuff in there, but it's not the right stuff for a job like Iraq. The kind of smaller, more agile, and highly lethal armed forces they imagined would be a good thing -- to support a policy of containment. But they never questioned whether it was a good way to organize for a nation building mission. As a result, we take a military whose great strength is agility, and force them to stay put, making them an easy target for opportunistic attacks. Not only are they sitting ducks, they're sitting ducks with highly lethal reflexes sitting in the middle of a civilian population.
At this point, there is no realistic possibility of anything like the exit scenario the Bush Administration hoped for. That's realism: you can't screw up that badly wihtout somebody paying the consequences. Rumsfeld is not particulary responsible for the strategic disarray in US policy, it
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes, you can pardon someone before they are charged as, notably, Ford did for Nixon.
Is'nt democracy sometimes described as "majority rules". If 40-42 % of a population votes would'nt "majority rules" mean that there should be NO government? I mean 60 % is'nt voting...
And the saddest fact of all? Even after all the blood spilled, the democrats only won many of their races by a small margin, indicating that a large, though still minority, population of the US still very much supports Bush and the neocons.
I find it hard to believe that Rumsfeld's earlier offers of resignation were an act, because there would have been nothing gained from it. It's a sort of admission of failure, an acknowledgement that things aren't going well. Politically, it would have been better for Rumsfeld to "stay the course" and pretend that everything is going fine.
And how many of those toy were made to "detect" , "kill" and/or "maim" a potential enemy/target ?
And how many of those toy were made for peace keeping (read : not bluntly killing) and rebuild, diplomacy ?
Don't bother answering, the response in your tone is self evident. Too bad you completly missed the point of the GP and let your aggressivity out. Ho wait, that was TOO a point of the GP.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Let's tell a little story here: Soldier Adam (an firefighter in civilian life), who lives in Oceania, has been "sent by his country" to Eastasia to liberate it. Soldier Chen (a dockworker in civilian life), who lives in Eastasia, has been "ordered by his country" to defend against the invasion. Each of them, along with the buddies in their unit, are in a firefight - bombs are raining down, machine gun fire is everywhere, maybe an RPG or two is launched. Some of Soldier Adam's buddies are dead or severely wounded - maybe Adam himself. On the other side, some of Soldier Chen's buddies are hurt or dead themselves. The battle is heated, but things slow down, and one side or both has retreated to re-group (let's pretend a standoff of some sort here). As they re-group, they have time to cool off, and perhaps think about things (briefly - tension is high). Soldier Adam thinks about his fiance and new son back home, wondering if he will get back to the firehouse. Soldier Chen wonders about his wife and sister, who live with them - do they have enough to eat? - and will he get back to work on the dock (is the dock still there?). Neither one wants to be there, they both want to be back home (wherever it is), they both want the same thing: peace, stability, a roof over their head, food, water, and some work to do.
So how the hell are they here, seeing each other as the Other - as a non-entity to be killed or bypassed in some brutal manner? Of course, they are doing the jobs they were told to do (and hopefully not obeying illegal orders - though that might be more difficult to do than you think for either). Even so, didn't either of them, Adam or Chen, have this thought processs about war, and what it means for people on both sides, before they signed up (ignoring drafting here - but still) to kill each other?
What the hell is it about humanity's inability to put itself in other's shoes - to see each other as humans, with human wants and needs? Why do they obey a leader or a country to fight and kill each other, when each knows (whether through logic and reason, or by decree of religion) that killing is wrong? Why is it OK if the State tells you to kill (or the State kills itself, as in the death penalty), but if an individual citizen of the State does so without the State's approval, it suddenly becomes wrong? If the State is really composed of "we the people" - then shouldn't all killing, regardless of context, be wrong equally (or right equally, if you want to take that stance)? Admittedly, Soldier Chen is on a better footing than Soldier Adam, even though he was drafted by his State - simply because his State was invaded, not Adam's. Even so, why can't each look, and see, and understand and know, after all these thousands of years of human history, that more and bigger weapons DO NOT LEAD TO PEACE, and the killing each other is NOT A LONG TERM SOLUTION?
Every new and more powerful weapon is hailed as the device that will bring peace to the planet - from Nobel's discovery of dynamite, to the machine gun, to the nuclear bomb, to...? What is next? An anti-matter weapon to cleanse planets ala "Chronicles of Riddick"? Will the destruction of the planet bring peace? Will there only be piece when there is only one man-monkey sitting in the ashes of a scorched Earth (admittedly, maybe there will be - at least until he kills himself - and then peace will be acheived, I suppose)?
In short, what is it ultimately going to take for humanity to stop killing each other, and instead work together to go beyond...everything? Or, is it an impossible dream, and humanity is destined to die (or worse, spread throughout the Universe bring hate, distrust, anger, and vengence whereever it sets foot)? Finally, why is it that I can see this absurdity, and project it forward (and thus, not be stupid enough to join a killing machine) - yet others can't, and either do join the
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
He is part of the criminal shadow government of wet work spooks and blood profiteers who decided they knew better than the US people, and helped bring about "regime change" back then..He is a very dangerous person and should have been put in jail for life a long time ago, but we never had a real investigation about that hit other than jim garrison's work.
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration.
Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Group A; "We want him out! Now!"
Group B: Fine, he's gone.
Group A: "NoooO! Not yet!!"
Welcome to US Government Politics 101.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Personally I believe this was all politics.
The facts:
1. They announce Rumsfeld stepping down after the senate/house of representative/state elections.
2. Mr. Gates seems to me as he is another Bush insider. He worked for Bush Sr. and now is assisting Bush Jr.
3. Mr. Gates owns or has high interests in Fidelity Investments, he was on the board of directors of NACCO Industries, Inc., Brinker International, Inc. and Parker Drilling Company, Inc.
4. He also has interest in the Middle East. Although he wasn't indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, it seems evident that he played an important role in in this scandal. He also has a history of lying if you digg some more information on him.
Sources: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_16.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
This is not intended as any disrepect for your service in Desert Storm, but I have to wonder what counts as information "that's provided" in your world.
At least three months ahead of the invasion you could have already watched or read reports from a number of leading European, Australian, Canadian, and Asian news sources that the yellowcake documents had been determined by experts to be forged, the aluminum tubes were a mundane (non-nuclear) component, the hydrogen trailers were likely used for weather baloons, the long shed-things were not WMD facilities but used to raise chickens, and that the true report of biological WMD in Iraq was very old with subsequent verification during the Clinton administration that the WMD had been gotten rid of.
It's clear to me that when making a decision in 2003 you didn't try, but instead jerked your knee according to what was "provided" or put directly under your nose. Next time the war drums start beating, I suggest you and all the others who made the same mistake pull your heads out of Corporate America's newsy-tainment ass.
Arrogant warmongering cunt. Just hope the rest of them fuck off soon as well.
Wow. He vacated fast. The place is empty already except for the billiards room. That is one tacky billiards room. No wonder he left the pool table.
SiO2
Not sure why you say "still minority" considering the dems got trounced in 04, but anyway...
The reason the democrats didn't win by much is that as a party, as bad as their opposition might be, they're not really much better. The party has virtually no ideas or plans for how to fix what's happening, rather its just complaining and finger pointing. Everyone is talking about how the republicans lost the election, not how the democrats won it. People are gonna realize awfully fast that some things are gonna get better (foreign policy- maybe), and some things are gonna get worse (taxes and spending- probably).
Honestly, voting rights in America shouldn't be based on age, they should be based on independence and tax status. Its great being a liberal if someone else's tax money is being spent.
You'd better learn the meaning of the word "pre-emptive" or you'll end up sounding like a neocon.
Pre-emption is a tactical military decision made when, for all intents and purposes, two nations are already at war--and although the shooting hasn't started yet, it is unavoidable and imminent. At that point one party may decide to attack first just to get the upper hand. That's pre-emption. Got it? The closest to a textbook example of this is Israel's pre-emptive attack on Egypt's airfields (some argue that Egypt's military buildup and sabre-rattling was all bluff and Israel knew it, and that's a valid observation, but work with me here...)
Here's how the Iraq war differed from that: Iraq had not threatened the US, Iraq had no capability to threaten the US in any meaningful way, and the US has no credible (i.e. non-fabricated) evidence of any threat. The US attacked Iraq anyway. That's not pre-emption--the correct term for that is AGGRESSION. Note the subtle difference. This is what the world objected to, not pre-emption. The textbook example of aggression is Germany's invasion of Poland.
Your hypothetical Clinton example features an actual threat to the US, and therefore is not a good parallel for Bush's actions in Iraq. But it IS an excellent parallel for Bush's actions in Afghanistan. How did the world react to that? Guarded support from most quarters, open support from a few, and opposition from the usual suspects. I think Clinton could have dealt with that. In fact, he did (in Bosnia).
There is no problem at all with pre-emptive war. There is a big problem with people mistakenly calling naked aggression pre-emptive war. It creates the mistaken impression that the other side was about to attack. Exactly when was Iraq realistically hoping to begin their invasion of the US? Thousands of American soldiers are just dying to know.
1) The Dems in the majority would have raised hell until he was removed, essentially forcing his removal in a very public way. In this way the GOP can save face.
2) By doing this themselves the GOP can say in 2 years once Iraq has gotten better (by replacing a big contributor to the problem) that it was their action (the GOP action) that made Iraq get better and not the Dems. They're action to replace Rumsfeld is what made the Iraq situation better. The change puts the GOP in the position to pull the blow the wind out of the Dems' sails in 2 years.
Either way in 2 years the GOP is still in a good position from a PR perspective. They can now lay claim to any good the Dems do in Iraq. Crafty bastards.
He stepped down at the end of Bush's first term, but Bush insisted that he stay.
Funny thing is the Koran says to "kill the unbelivers" and as far as I can tell both of these groups ARE beleivers!
Are there pertinent distinctions between being an unbeliever, a disbeliever, and a nonbeliever?
Can one be an anti-believer?
(De-believer? a-believer? e-believer? iBeliever? You believe her?)
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
As a student at Texas A&M (where up until 3 hours ago Robert Gates was president) I'd like to be the first to state how happy we are to see a change of leadership on campus. The rest of the country may be in trouble however...
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
First, comparing Vietnam and Iraq is a big mistake.
Vietnam was a slow build-up where the opposite sides were funded and supported by countries with good income. Worse, politicians prevented the troops from doing their job ( afraid of engaging USSR and China).
OTH, when we invaded Iraq, 250K troops combined with a true rebuilding would have prevented the insurgency. Now, we have to actively go in and hunt them down. It can be done, but it will take more than 500K troops, combined with rebuilding of businesses. Keep in mind, that most ppl will not join insurgencies if they can have a decent life. As it is, we have goulags that compare to what USSR, the Shah, and even Saddam had; roughly, these ppl have nothing to lose by joining the insurgency. And yes, according to a number of real military experts, 500K should be enough.
As to reading about Vietnam, that is not necessary. As one who was born in the 50's and was a military-brat, I lived it.
Ah, the last time a man named Gates was in control of something big, powerful and American, we got... Microsoft!
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Please read the entire article, which includes links to documents showing that the U.S. intelligence new about Saddam using chemical weapons against "kurdish insurgents". The document in question was written in Nov. 1983. They had known about Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians for longer. Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in Dec. 1983.
Which is not to imply that Rumsfeld necessarily knew what Hussein doing, him being an envoy at the time not the Defense Secretary as he was yesterday. Our government did know, though, and sent Rumsfeld on his make-nice mission anyway. Never forget that -- when it was expedient, the government welcomed a genocidal maniac as an ally, and then turned on them when it was convenient. Try to remember when in twenty years you're hearing about the evils of Uzbekistan and the need for 'liberation'.
The enemies of Democracy are
Oh, what, you say? The Democrats won? Well then America has spoken and we finally have a clean election!! Hurrahh!!
The war in Iraq was a huge success and Rumsfeld knew exactly what he was doing. It was never about liberating anybody, or fighting terrorists, or any other bullshit the media shoves down our throats. The war is about making money. A few corporations/businessmen, with the aid of their 'hired' government officials, are making an absolute killing profit-wise and will be rolling in the dough for some time, all at the expense of the tax-payer, who's largely responsible for footing the bill, and the citizens of the invaded country, who also are raking up huge debts to companies like Halliburton for oil importation, infrastructure development, etc... When you consider what the real objectives of the war were, and the reasons for going, it should be branded a success, and Rumsfeld being one of the primary orchestrators, deserves some of the credit.
to say, "Peace Out". Until then, we will crab at defense secretaries....
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Huh?
Army Times isn't an official Army publication, it's a trade rag (like, say Zdweek) published by the USA Today group, if I'm not mistaken.
Oh, sure, you can claim he made the world safe by taking down a dictator. Just try telling that to the Iraq people as they bury more people in a single day than Saddam killed.
Who is claiming that? I believe it is a genuinely good service to remove such a dictator, it should be done as often as possible. If the people themselves under that dictator then continually everyday fuck each other over under a "damned if we'll let a western power come out of this looking good" mentality or useless religious differences then you still blame the person knocking the dictator out of power and trying to hold things to order as best as possible? Or do you blame the people that truly deserve the blame? The "insurgents" are killing each other, we're killing the people that are shooting and setting bombs and so on. The people burying people in Iraq are burying those that were fucked over most often by insurgents or secondly engaging the military or much much fewer, those who are too near to the conflict. The people who argue points ignorant of this leads me to believe the world is just absolutely full with idiots. Use your brain and assign blame correctly, not towards those who topple a dictator, help establish elections and are trying like hell to clean up after a major power shift under seriously difficult conditions.
Rumsfeld is an accessory to Saddam's war crimes for selling him poison gas and sat maps which allowed Saddam to kill his people. Remember this photo that was taken around the time of the offences? http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/02/rumsfeld-s addam.jpgpf8qfo.jpg
And Gates is a old Iran Contra criminal. How many of these old Iran Contra criminals can fit in the White House anyway?
Now we're paying the price. And much more than just troop loss (which is actually quite minimal, compared to other world conflicts, like, say WWII).
Something important there. Name one military invasion and occupation of another country that size that has had as low a troop loss. Proportionally or direct.
Over the last few decades the US has shown an ability to perform military actions with amazingly low levels of troop loss. Anyone who thinks this not the case is entirely ignorant of history.
For example, in Vietnam in 19966 alone some 5,000+ soldiers lost their lives. From the start of the invasion to November 8th the US Iraq total is 2832 (with 7 awaiting confirmation).
While I as a former special operations man applaud this acheivement, it does have it's penalties. In particular the people. The People seem to think that any troop loss is major and quite frankly it isn't. We need perspective. Sadly, most of you who have never served, or never served in combat operations and put your own neck on the line, have no idea what is really going on and what the troop loss means.
In my opinion those of you who claim that leaving is the only way to "honor" the lives lost are no better than those who insist that hard-nosed staying the course is the only way to "honor" them. Speaking as one who has been shot at and had artillery dropped on my postion the way to honor those who had their lives taken is not so simple. First, you never blame those who sent you for the lives lost, always place the blame on those who took the life. Second, if the objective is just, complete the objective. And third, if leaving is likely to cause more problems in the long run, you finish the job. Sadly, both of the vocal sides of this Iraq argument get it wrong.
As someone who has been trained in tactics and strategy and has experienced their results firsthand, civilians have no idea what can be done with a small well-trained force. As I see it more troops won't do much good against a "terrorist" style enemy. Guerilla fighting versus set-piece nearly always results in a failure to eliminate the enemy by the set-piece side. The larger the sittign force the higher the casualties and the higher the risk. Every combat soldier requires 3-4 support personnel. With large forces these support personnel need to be "in-theatre".
When you read the report about that alleged study, did you note that the 400,000 figure includes support personnel, or was that even reported? My supposition is the latter. Given the ratios I've given above, do you realize how small the number of combat troops is? In the Clinton era the average ratio of support to combat troops was 4:1. Do you realize that the current number of combat troops in Iraq is rather similar? IIRC we officially have about 120K combat troops in-country. Today the ratio is in the neighborhood of 2.8:1. Do the math.
As of 2004 US Active Duty Army consisted of about half a million. That includes support troops. If the report was claiming 400K combat troops to occupy a country the size of California it has serious flaws. Not the least of which is the fact we don't have that many. However, I am extremely sceptik that the report made such a claim. It would be tantamount to making the claim that the US military is not capable of occupying a country the size of California.
Additionally, the restructuring of the US Army from a set-piece dominant Divisional Army to a much more flexible and lean Brigade Army makes troop requirement assumptions form prior to the reorganization non-comparative. A division requires and maintains a much higher level of support crew than a brigade does. Deploying a couple brigades requires fewer overall troop levels than deplaying a full division. If done well the deployment of "sister brigades" results in yet lower troop levels due to more efficient support lines.
Anytiem you see a pundit or worse yet a politician talking about "requried troop levels" to support an occupation of Iraq or other country, be suspicious. It is like comparing total vulnerability reports for two Internet web browsers: smoke and mirrors.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
The Texas A&M football team hasn't beaten U. of Texas since 1999!! Come on, that's even worse than Colorado's record with Nebraska over that last 10 years. If Dr. Gates can't put a team together to win rivalries, how can we hope for him to get our generals together to win in Iraq? I'm afraid we'll be on the loosing end again on our outstanding US-Iran rivalry.
I think the timing was meant to keep their base optimistic and voting. Rumsfeld stepping down is taken by most as an admission of failure, and some of the Republican base were living in a bubble where things in Iraq were improving and Republicans would keep control of Congress. The rosy electoral predictions from top Republicans were for the same reason - to keep morale as high as possible among their base and thereby limit the loss of seats as much as possible.
I tried to put a tag but screwed up (damn HTML...).
And the saddest thing of all is that you think that a vote for a Democrat is any more intelligent than a vote for a Republican, and that a vote for a Democrat will bring about some kind of change in Washington, DC. The fact of the matter is, it didn't matter if the Democrats gained control or the Republicans retained it. The US loses because both of those parties make up the ruling class that our forefathers so hated in England, and they think they're the only ones who can run this country. Next time, look at your entire ballot and vote for the one person on there whom you think will actually do something instead of run a giant dog-and-pony show.
Its good that american people finally realized what the entire world already knew. The world diplomacy and politics is run via co-operation and humility, not via idealogues who think they are above all and have their own personal agendas (neo-conservatists anyone !!). Good for US, good for the world. I hope end are the days of "My way or the highway" or to quote Bush personally: "Either you are with us, or are with the terrorists! " phew !!
Honestly, voting rights in America shouldn't be based on age, they should be based on independence and tax status. Its great being a liberal if someone else's tax money is being spent.
You really need to keep up.
The Republicans are the party of bigger government than even the Democrats and have been for 30 years
They spend more, increase the size of government much more.
Anybody who votes for Republicans for fiscal issues is a delusional moron who hasn't paid a bit of attention to the situation in decades.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/search/index.php
All those billions down the tube - one wonders if Rummy's going will make any difference to the rate of spend or how it's spent? I like this bit:
"The propaganda keeps quiet about the torture of prisoners in secret jail cells, and about the infiltration of the security forces by sectarian militias. These activities are overseen by the Interior Ministry, which reportedly employs at least a thousand ghost employees, whose wages amount to more than $1 million a month. The US Embassy has lost track of the weapons, radios and other hardware it has supplied over the past two years, and the auditors talk of 'uncertain property ownership' and 'political difficulties'. The ministry's audit director, who is responsible for police activities throughout Iraq, has six staff and one computer. Much of the equipment intended for government use is probably with sectarian militias, or has been sold."
I like to see Unca Sam's tax dollars at work - but selling weapons to kill it's own soldiers? It's a blooddy farce I tells ya. And Rummy should be in jail.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Indeed, a quick glance at Digg's top stories shows that people were on their toes all over America, just waiting to pounce on any perceived shenanigans at the polls. Over 1/3 of all the stories on yesterday's front Political News page are about Republicans trying to steal the election.
http://www.digg.com/politics/page3
A quick search on Google turns up:
'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter
The United States is *so full* of people who refuse to make political decisions based on intelligent thought - it's why this country is going downhill so fast. It's why our political system is a shambles and our representatives are a joke. Your comments illustrate exactly the thought process that is the root of this problem. As an example - your implication that because Democrats now control the House and possibly Senate, that taxes and spending are going to get "worse". First of all, higher taxes are not necessarily worse if they significantly improve the standard of living of those who pay them (which they do if they are spent on sensible, meaningful government programs instead of useless wars). Secondly, it would virtually be IMPOSSIBLE to spend more than the current administration. My wife and I are currently making arrangements to move out of the USA. I was born and raised here but I am so sick to even be a part of the idiocy that is the American public that I just can't take it anymore. By the way, there are PLENTY of intelligent and honest Americans - in sum total probably more than the entire populations of many countries - but they are unfortunately drowning in a sea of idiots here.
Bush and Cheney need to go as well.
Your fear and ingrained anti-semitism bubbles to the surface in a flood of name dropping and half-connected half-truths. You will never understand the complex reality of our world. You are lost in your own prejudices and small-mindedness. I post this for anybody else who might be misguided by your ignorance.
...). Eventually you could eliminate everybody in the world except for the people just like you and the Islamic fanatics. You'd find you still have some pretty serious problems. So go eliminate the Islamic fanatics. You'd finally be all alone and happy with your own people. And yet still... You would destroy your world around you because rather than looking at yourself and the possibly disastrous consequences of your behavior, you would rather find more false gods to blame your suffering on until your entire civilization collapsed.
The US war against Iraq was executed for three primary reasons: cronyism, oil, and the preservation of Western civilization.
1. Cronyism: The machine that is the Bush administration successfully diverted billions of dollars of US taxpayer money to its corporate friends (e.g. Halliburton) for "rebuilding" a nation it destroyed with weapons purchased from yet other corporate friends. This is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about in 1961 [1]. The Bush machine operates with tight ties to private industry and is arguably in power because of their nefarious arragnements with e-voting company Diebold and its predecessors [2] [3].
2. Oil: The US economy and American way of life is founded on cheap oil. Everything from big box stores to large urban areas to suburbs to roads to supermarkets to modern farming to plastics... Our whole way of life is powered by oil in one way or another. (Tying in to #1 (conyism), the Bush machine also has significant ties to the oil industry, but let's leave that in the cronyism bucket). Securing an unfriendly foreign source of oil is vital toward our future if we are to continue living how we live and not convert our wilderness into oil fields. These are complex topics. Read more. [4]
3. Preservation of Western civilization: You may not realize it, but we (the "west") have been in a war with Islam for centuries [5]. Our techniques have matured and advanced with the times, and we no longer go on honorable Muslim-killing crusades for Glory and God. Theirs have not, and there are large factions of Islam in the world that see a future with any infidels as totally unacceptable. At some point you have to recognize that the problem is not going away on its own. IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF OUR POLICIES and IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF OUR CULTURE. It's because of us. We're here. That's enough to royally piss them off. Israel is a gem of democracy in a desert of corrupt totalitarianism, religious extremism, and suffering. Iraq can be too. Without planting these seeds, the cancer of fanatical Islam will inevitably spread unchecked and take over the entire world by numbers and by force. Credit the Bush administration for recognizing these truths at some level, even if they are mostly just fallout from Cronyism and Oil reasons. Sit complacent watching Dancing With the Stars on TV with pacifist stars in our eyes, and you are just dying slowly one day at a time.
Ignorant people like you are quick to blame the Jews for the world's problems. The thing is, if the Jews weren't there, you'd find somebody else (Blacks, Atheists, Psychics, Witches,
[1] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/speeche s/eisenhower001.htm
[2] http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/ index.html
[3] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-723679120 7107726851&q=hacking+democracy
[4]
On behalf of the grateful people of this nation (approx 50%), I salute you in the only way I know how!
May you and your brothers be blessed beyond comprehension.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
does anyone have insight on robert gates, what the fuck is he gonna do for us?
Let me review timelines... Star Trek DS9 started in the Mid 1990's, long before this current mess.
So now the Iraqis (Bajorans) hate the occupiers who want material resource supplies (Cardiassians) and are fighting a resistance movement with everything they have. The intensely religious backdrop of DS9 matches perfectly with the intense religous backdrop of Iraq. So in 2009, when W. is repudiated, America ceases involvement, we'll start to see all these human interest stories about the rebuilding of Iraq after the occupation. Oops. Are we on the wrong side of the stereotypical plot?
Anyone else think that show deserves a new look?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The worse thing the left could do right now is call for impeachment of the president. If you are going to do that impeach the vice president as well. Otherwise you are going to end up with somebody far more ruthless, destructive, power hungry and smart, than Bush.
Just to change the story, i.e. Dem Victory...Just wanted to say as well that when Rummy made his go to war with the army you have comment, in response to the question about lack of armor for the HumVees. A good SecDef would have said "good point about the armor, I'll go down to the motor pool and kick some @ss, you go buy as much scrap metal as you can (and let me say that right after the invasion I think there was alot of scrap metal hanging around)." But instead of acknowledging the problem and then at least trying to fix it,all he did was fix the blame.
It is interesting that you prove Walt and Mearsheimer's point, that anyone who criticizes Israel is libeled and slandered as an anti-Semite, as you have done.
If you will revisit my original post, I pointed out that AIPAC comprises hawkish Jews and evangelical Christians. I also pointed out that AIPAC does not represent all Jewish opinion in Israel nor America. Therefore a criticism of AIPAC can only reasonably be called a criticism of AIPAC, and not a blanket statement about any ethnic group or religion.
You are therefore over-using the term anti-Semite to mean "anyone you disagree with." If you keep doing that, the word will lose its power and real anti-Semitism that advocates the destruction of Israel or killing of Jews, both loathesome goals, will not be addressed. As a final etymological note, Arabs are also a Semitic people, so calling them "Islamic fanatics" is itself anti-Semitism.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I've seen a lot of political news on Slashdot. Why is that? I come here for tech news. There are millions of other news sites where I can read about elections, resignations, etc. What's more, I can read dozens of other sites that loft allegations, spread rumors and conspiracy theories, etc. This isn't Moveon.org, it's slashdot.
It's a mess - it's too late for blame, but a lot of the lies were obvious to those far away from it all.
Title says all
Gates is the president of Texas A&M University and a close friend of the Bush family. He served as director of the Central Intelligence for Bush's father from 1991 until 1993.
Great, another Bush yes-man! Oh, yeah, there is going to be real change, uh huh. This President is so freaking insular and one-track minded, it is frustrating in the extreme.
Currently hooked on AMP
Please. You specifically said:
c onflict_photographs_controversiest view.asp?ID=5215&Type=P
"[AIPAC is] the reason why you never hear criticism of Israel in the United States of America, because they actively and tirelessly lobby government, academia, and the media to suppress our freedom to speak honestly about and discuss openly the situation there"
You think there's no open honest discussions about the situation? Look in any US newspaper and you'll see a wide variety of opinions from every walk of life, including a LARGE degree of criticism of Israel. Look on any college campus. Academia is riddled with pro-Palestinian anti-Israeli liberals spewing off their compassionate pleas to stop the violence and showing (often manipulated [1]) photos of wounded Palestinians and bombed out cities. Yasser Arafat spoke openly at Harvard University in 1995 [2] with barely any protest. Look anywhere other than the box you're in and you would see that the country (people) and world is pretty openly anti-Israel. Including many Jews in America. Get real.
And as for calling you an anti-semite, if you want to be pedantic about it, then obviously it's not an accurate term. Neither is "caucasian" for white people, "asian" for oriental people, "african-american" for black people, or any of a dozen other commonly used terms. But you know what I meant, didn't you?
I didn't use the term because I apply it to "anyone [I] disagree with" as you declare, but because I can see through your veil of "facts" to your underlying beliefs. You and people like you would happily tear down any Jewish groups or organizations that would stand up for themselves or their country in the same way the world wants Israel to sit on its hands while their hostile neighbors refuse to acknowledge their existence, openly declare intentions to "wipe them off the map", and launch military strikes into dense civilian areas.
Your anti-semitism (you know what I mean) is the most dangerous kind, because you would use it in the same way you accuse AIPAC of manipulating truths: You attack organizations with power while covering yourself (perhaps even believing it) with things like "but I have lots of Jewish friends" as if this would hide the fact that ultimately you hate Jews and would be quite happy to see them wiped off the map so we could stop sending money to greedy Israel and getting into wars to defend them, or whatever twisted Jewless ideals you envision.
Perhaps I'm wrong about you (and Mel Gibson too), but I've met and read enough people like you to think otherwise. I do give you credit for replying to an AC, though. At least you stand by your opinion.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_
[2] http://ksgaccman.harvard.edu/iop/events_forum_lis
More than 1 time, more than 1 place-- THIS congress was called a do-nothing-congress. This said when they had control and were in a hurry to push some stuff to look good before this election.
Losing control at this point does not change things for them other than they now have to deal with some oversight.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Other countries even have loonies for President (I'm not talking about the USA so calm down), so let's not have more pointless comparisons here.
I believe it is a genuinely good service to remove such a dictator,
Generally spoken, yes..
it should be done as often as possible.
Nice idea, but let me give you a better starting point, stop helping them to power to begin with.
Currently the USA has a long history of helping such people to power when it comes in handy, and disposing of those that become too much of a burden. Removing dictators to give democracy a chance is not entering the picture here at all.
Next, there is a very long string of historical events telling that if such a change doesn't come from within the country itself, it usually (but not always) fails.
If the people themselves under that dictator then continually everyday fuck each other over under a "damned if we'll let a western power come out of this looking good" mentality or useless religious differences then you still blame the person knocking the dictator out of power and trying to hold things to order as best as possible?
If you can predict with a very high level of certainty that you cannot stabilize the country after removing a dictator, and you still go ahead then you are indeed guilty of turning a bad situation into an even worse one.
This does in no way remove the responsibility of the people of Iraq and the insurgants there, but neither does their behavior remove the responsibility of those in charge of the invasion.
You invade, you occupy, you are responsible. Don't like it? how about not doing it then?
By letting someone speak an opposing view we hate you and want to see Israel wiped off the map? Just about any major meeting of national leaders includes a serial killer or two so why start with Arafat? War is horrible so you will get criticism of it - live with the fact or support those looking for a solution - Arafat despite his many faults did negotiate with others that were looking for solutions - including one Israeli leader that was assassinated by extremists for making deals.
At least Godwin's law hasn't come up - thankfully the discussion has been intelligent enough to keep that out.
Digg really isn't a good way to try get a feel for the public's mood when it comes to politics. While the model Digg uses may work well for other topics, politics is far too polarized. The majority of sane users avoid it like the plague, while the far left/right seem to flock to it like moths to a bug zapper.
is good with one exception. When the bankers come to collect the US will need to call in some markers to pay of their debts. The nations that the US lends money to for the most part cannot possibly pay back the money. Mrs. Marcos cannot sell all her shoes which she bought with her embezzled money and Achmed certainly can't sell his tanks. So in short the US is screwed. The Chinese know this. There is reason why the US turns a blind eye to so many human rights violations.
If China decided to declare economic war on the US they would be buried.
Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
Actually, this is a terrorist victory. This war isn't about WMD (that just sold ad time on TV). The Islamists have a 100 year plan to completely anhiliate western civilization. Rumsfeld gets it, but a long war doesn't sell ad time on CNN. If we cut and run, Europe will be an Islamic state in 20-30 years, and all of our children will be slaves to the Islamic mind control machine.
To be fair to CNN, they're not a leftist propoganda machine. Remember that their customers are advertisers, and viewership matters; things like truth, balance and reality are really ancillary.
The pentagon was talking about "operation Cut'n Run",
maybe only Rummy has figured out what that meant.
Robert
Frivolous , as in a sexual harassment case so lame, it was tossed summary judgement, since it was fatally flawed, as the plaintiff was unable to identify one instance of harassment? ?
Let's weigh instances of frivolity in the balance, ok?
On the left side of the scale, place a president's lies about acts of consensual sex given in sworn deposition in a civil case that had no merit. Onto that, place a stained blue dress.
On the right-side of the balance, place a president's lies and distortions about the causes for an immoral war. Onto that, place blood-stained Iraqi sands.
Which is more frivolous?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
If that was your idea of yelling and screaming, then C-SPAN must absolutely terrify you.
Yes indeed
That's utter crap and you know it. Statistically, there are an order of magnitude more Western people killing Muslim people than the other way around. The West has certainly NOT transcended their era of military crusades, and the Muslim world's response to this is largely perfectly acceptable. Of course there are always extremists - in any group of people - but we can hardly point the finger at the Muslims when it is our extremism that is causing theirs.
That is also bullshit, unless when you say 'here', you actually mean 'in Palestine'. The Muslim world couldn't give two hoots about where the rest of the world 'is', as long as it's not in their own backyard, with weapons of mass destruction and a bag full of 'good intentions'.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Ha!
Ha!
Oh dear
Well, well, you just shot all the rest of your credibility to pieces. Israel is a gem of a racist, apartheid state
Oh, put a plug in it, you racist idiot. The same can and has been said about the Jews. I don't see any sizable numbers of Islamic fanatics on the verge of taking over the world, but if I did , then I would blame dickheads like you first.
We have now crossed into realm that ANY military action will no longer be tolerated by the American people. We have decided that ANY losses are too much.
Not at all. It's one thing to go defeat an aggressor like in the Gulf War. It is another thing entirely to occupy a foreign country as the aggressor. Do you think there are more, or less "terrorists" today than there was in 2001? There is no plan for Iraq - Saddam is out of power and soon out of life. The Iraqi have their chance at "democracy" with a new government and a new constitution, and seems that they don't want it. Is the US going to stay there until the last Sunni kills the last Shiite? Hello?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
We launched Desert Storm under dubious pretenses then as well. It started out as a border dispute, of which our regional ambassadors and CIA analysts were not concerned.
However Iraq was also looking for a way to get out of it's war debt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait itself.
Saudi Arabia, and especially Kuwait wouldn't have that... so they encouraged the countries downstream from OPEC to make it right --
* Exaggerated reports of Iraqi troop buildup on Saudi border
* Kuwati $10M+ ad campaign to get public support with falsified reports of Iraqi attacks
So we go in, and the plan was to kick Saddam out and prop up a government that would help pay them back for the Iraq/Iran war (which we didn't handle so well).
It was too easy. So we didn't follow through because we thought we could control them economically. Instead they diverted funds to re-buffing the military and sponsoring ethnic warfare within the country. This drove the Kurds into Iran and Turkey, and provided the basis for growing militant Islam in the region.
I find it assisine that our leaders tried to go back in and finish what they started, thinking they could fix it. But they hadn't gotten the taste of urban warfare back in the early 90s (like I said, it was too easy), so it seemed simple enough to sell the idea of going back in and somehow undoing the damage. The theory being, by putting a democratic regime in charge, and re-uniting the ethnic groups, they could stifle militant fundamentalism that had culminated in 9/11.
So this time, they use "War on Terror" to sell the idea, rather than Madison Avenue.
None of the publically stated causes were ever just. There were other reasons (some of them with good intentions), but only to be revealed later. Many of them, however, were shortsighted and encumbered with hubris.
So yeah, I totally disagree that 7 years ago the world was telling us we should do this. The world was never telling us we should do this. We need to stop listening to the Saudis.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
we succeeded in throwing the Iraqis out. But see, that's not what the Saudis and Kuwatis wanted out of us, they wanted repayment/resources from Iraq and a buffer against Iran.
We tried to do that as expediantly as possible (it would have cost us too much to topple and set up the government), but the plan backfired. We got them resources back in the form in payments for "services" (like using their airfields, transportation, food, etc.). But there was cultural/political instability, and we've been waiting for an excuse to try to fix that.
Only we waited until AFTER 9/11 to try to do it... big mistake. That was the tipping point where we should have realized that that idea was a forgone conclusion, and the "secular" Iraqi government would be better than anything else (which would be seen as overt western imperialism).
Forget about whether going into another country to change things is right or not on priniciple, it was just DUMB all around.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Bush is just trying to hold on for the rest of his Presidency so, when there isn't an Iraq on the map anymore, he can act as if he did his best and what came later wasn't his fault. This isn't a liberation, it's a dim little man who stumbled into the Presidency trying to protect his name in history. He's surrounded by a few incompetent but impervious-to-facts-and-reason would-be "visionaries" who have long histories of being wrong about just about everything and being completely insulated from any concept of responsibility or self-doubt. What would you really have us do here?
from wikipedia:
His first term of office was served from 1975 to 1977 under President Gerald Ford. His second term of office began January 20, 2001 under President George W. Bush.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Gawd. Just the image of all these leftie geeks pulling their pud while obsessively clicking refresh button makes me sick.
/. represents the typical Democratic constituency, then stay tuned for some really nasty shit coming from Pelosi and her little lap do Reid.
If
i'm pretty sure the army times, navy times, air force times, and marine corps times saying he was an atrociously incompetent boob had something to do with it too.
Good news! You can write your incoming Senator...
If he or she was sitting in the 110th Congress, ask him or her to refuse to confirm the nomination before the 111th is sworn in.
Also tell your Senator to openly oppose a recess appointment.
The reason: you want a full and real investigation about that hit, and confirmation hearings in a Democrat-controlled Senate hostile to the administration seems like a good venue.
Problem solved?
My best guess is that George will be stepping down soon too.
The Demo's are going to take that new found power and start investigating the situation and thump Gee Dubya right in the head.
They (the demo's) will take any thing he has done wrong or out of sequence and rip him a new one.
The writing is on the wall.
I'm not saying President Bush is right or wrong.
I'm just saying that he has pushing his weight around since he has been in office and answering to no one.
Now we will see if he will have to pay the piper or his disregard for popular opinion.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
Bush's untimely yanking of the US military from Afghanistan was wrong from at least two angles. First and foremost, it was wrong because our true enemy was there, and Saddam had nothing to do with 911. We should have taken al Qaeda to ground at Tora Bora then and there, withoput prejudice, for the dogs that they are, but instead, Bush decided to fix the data and evidence around his desire to assuage his oedipal urges in Iraq, the truth notwithstanding.
Secondly, Afghanistan's long descent into hell was in large measure caused by US reaction to the Soviet installation of a puppet regime in Kabul. Cater's NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski has in the past admitted that the arming of the Afghan Mujahadin occurred before the Soviet invasion, and was intended as a trap, and the Soviet's taking of the bait gave the U.S. an "opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war". Well over one million Afghanis died in that war, as well as 15,000 Soviet soldiers, mostly conscripts of poor peasants from USSR's outerlying regions. A fucking deadly pissing contest by two third parties.
This is the evil which began at the end of Carter's admin, but was taken up zealously by the ReaganCons. It was our responsibility to do what we can to bring Afghanistan back from their hell. Another miserable failure by the Son of Bush.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
wawawewa!
Why do you just copy and paste a small excerpt of what Kerry said during the comment and debate regarding the Authorisation of the Use of Force against Iraq. Tell me, Mr. A. Coward, are you just slothfully lazy or a GOP shill?
On October 9, 2002, Senator John Kerry spoke for 45 minutes on the Authorisation of Force, and yet little of it is actually cited. This is another of the many examples of distortions and outright dishonesty that the immoral GOP has shown itself capable of, yet still its Rank and Defiled refuse to look at the truth. Here are some excerpts from Senator Kerry's speech that day which GOP shills fail to cite:
That the GOP lies is well evidenced in the record. That GOP partisans refuse to see the truth is a grave danger to my country, and must be resisted.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Coming home in the car today, one of the radio news readers made a slip up and said that Bill Gates would be replacing Rumsfeld :)
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Good riddance.
Y
Me: "Without planting these seeds, the cancer of fanatical Islam will inevitably spread unchecked and take over the entire world by numbers and by force."
t icles/Education.asp -- oh no, it's a link to a site in Israel... I guess you can totally ignore the contents, right?1 20813.asp -- all of these quotes were from a single article... It took me 5 seconds to find them on Google. There are hundreds more out there.
You: "Oh, put a plug in it, you racist idiot. The same can and has been said about the Jews. I don't see any sizable numbers of Islamic fanatics on the verge of taking over the world, but if I did , then I would blame dickheads like you first."
That's a powerful argument you muster there by calling me a racist idiot. For that, I salute you. Let me respond, you ignorant motherfucker (and I say that with the utmost respect).
You don't "see any sizable number of Islamic fanatics on the verge of taking over the world"? Maybe you should open your eyes. Large portions of the Islamic world are being educated from birth to hate Jews, hate Israel, and hate the West. [1]
And it doesn't even take an army any more to subdue or destroy an entire country. All it takes is a corrupt regime to build nasty weapons ("we need power for our desalinization plants"), people with the will to do terrible things, greed, and an appreciation of martyrdom over life.
Every day prominent Muslims speak out without hesitation about punishing and destroying the Western world. [2]
- "You will find that the Jews were behind all the civil strife in this world. The Jews are behind the suffering of the nations."
- "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."
- "Democracy, human rights, and freedom are all but hollow illusions, with which they tranquilize inhabitants."
- "What you have you seen, O Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial clashes."
- "The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews -- even the stones and trees which were harmed by them...The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."
- "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it"
If you really want to find a dickhead to blame for this hatred, you'd be better off looking on another continent and in the another millenium, because it's been around since before any of us were here, and it's excessively amplified now by the threat of nuclear weapons. Keep your head up your stank liberal ass if you like, but the facts (and the people involved) speak for themselves. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. If you want to open your eyes to reality, there's plenty more information out there. [3]
[1] http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Ar
[2] http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200508
[3] http://www.jihadwatch.org/ -- one of many resources... feel free to find your own.
The content is posted and selected by the members, and the membership will be driven by the content. That isn't really a recipe for automatic evenhandedness.
Based on your comments, may I take it that you never saw, or were completed disinterested in, any stories about Democrat aligned groups involved in vote fraud? It will be hard to have clean, fair elections if we don't clean up fraud and abuse everywhere it occurs. Yes, that includes when Democrats do it, or profit from it, as well and any connected to Republicans. (Don't kid yourself that the story I linked to was the only one involving Democratic affiliates.)
And don't forget the Democratic election day playbook that was found last election:
Democrat's lawsuit alleging election fraud dismissed
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Well, then he's a perfect fit for this administration.
Cowards, traitors and murderers the lot of them.
Reasoned discussion is one of Slashdot's strengths..... when you can find it.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
In some, they were aided by a Libertarian third party that might have thrown the vote.
Stop perpetuating this lie. A vote for a candidate other than your favorite is not a vote that was thrown (neither off nor away).
"Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld"
.... goes to my garden, eats all the flowers, and then claims I have WMDs under my geraniums, making a barbecue of the guilty beast is not scapegoating, if you ask me.
Scapegoating implies that someone is sacrified as a token gesture, shielding some other people.
In this case Rumsfeld, that once and again used the US army for politicial purposes (google for "American Century") was the leading strategist of the sorry mess Iraq has been.
His monumental incompetence and lack of judgment, heavily influenced by colonialist ambitions maskerading as the promotion of democracy, has been his downfall, not some sort of undeserved punishment.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Now, that is what I call progress.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... can't be brilliant by defintion.
And ill advice adventure rotten from the start could not be followed by anything brilliant.
At the end, the only thing we have is piles and piles of Iraqi corpses (US loses are minuscule in comparison, a side note really).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Google for it, Rumsfeld and many of the neocons base their policies on that rubish.
Iraq was in their sight before Bush became president. They were just looking for the lamest of excuses.
In the mean time the Taleban can't be defeated (the real sponsors of terrorism, which Hussein wasn't)
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The sanctions were in place in order to stop Hussein, amongst other things, to build WMDs.
Comes Bush, and after a decade of mostly effective sanctions, what does he say: they have WMDs.
You guys begin to sound quite desperate frankly...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Nothing else to say.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
No.
Who was the authority regarding WMDs in Iraq? UN teams, the last one headed by Hans Blix.
These teams consistently reported there were no WMDs, specially during the run to the invasion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
US and UK forces were not invited and have no legal mandate to be there (i.e. scurity council resolution).
They are occupying forces, plain adn simple. That there are people trying to defend this mess wrestling with semantics in spite of the bleeding obvious, is a validation of how idiotic all this has been.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Is that you Mr Rumsfeld?
Turkey has clearly stated that if an independent Kurdish state arises, they will invade immediately. This in order to put to rest any false hope Kurds in Turkey may have.
Iran and Saudi Arabia would immediately try to influence and control the respective friendly states as buffer zones agains each other.
Then you have Syria's interests.
The current mess would be child's play compared to the consequences of your "solution".
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Robert Gates is the brother of Jim Gates, who was the high school principal at Southeast High School in Wichita, KS, back in the late 80s. Some of the teachers at that school (Gary Lincoln comes to mind) talked about growing up with him, and thought it was weird when Robert because head of the CIA. I wonder how they'd feel now that he's replacing Rummy.
Small, small world.....
Your post broke slashdot. You are the last comment in the database that can be replied to. Go ahead, try replying to my post. You can't. It'll end up under the this article itself at the very bottom instead.
You should make t-shirts and sell them through Cafe Press to celebrate.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Of course we should not forget that Dr. Gates had a full chapter in the Walsh Iran/Contra report.
As for McCain's chances; if i was making the line, it would start at about 15:1, and i'd gladly take all of the sucker money coming down on him. His play for the right-side hasn't endeared him to the hard-right Republicans, and has alienated him from the independents. As for my take: He's no Bary Goldwater...
Your ex-mayor has even less chance than McCain. Did you see the NatRev cover of him about two months ago?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
BULL
/. steers to the left with their moderators, this ended it. How this manages to be a +4 post is amazing to me.
SHIT
If there's any debate whether
Many of the biggest stories, backed up by the number of call center calls, were from traditionally strong Republican counties.
Worse, these were areas which did not have problems in the past. iow, whatever the reasons, the outcry from the 2000 election in a few areas caused a mandate to change the system for everyone, *even those systems which had worked in the past*. You ended up disenfranchsing more voters than you did in the past, not because of party lines, but because of introducing new tech that *did not always work*.
And those counties STILL ended up voting they typically do. Watching your wallet? In the past, you didn't know you HAD a wallet, much less money in it to begin with. People are watching now because each thinks the other side is cheating.
But then again, No Real libertarian is a Objectivist, they are instead Objectionists.
Aynnie used to be a darling of libertarian leaning conservatives, until the great bookburning of the reagancomdedy, when someone explained to the hammerheads that she was really a godless slut, and they burned her books along with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.
You may have noticed that i use a small l for libertarian. This is intentional, because what passes for the Libertarian Party has very little to do with true libertarianism. All those clowns seem to want to do is eliminate the minimum wage, and end eminent domain, they could care less about other things, like due process of law and habeas corpus, you know, REAL LIBERTY.
Your anti-global warming quip was off mark also. Most anti-global warming tripe is passed by the corporate funded faux libertarian tanks with Cato at its helm. Something closer to True libertarian thought can be found at Raimondo's antiwar dot com. Those faux-libertarian think tanks are doing a great disservice to libertarianism with their anti global warming garbage. They should instead be focusing upon effective market solutions to greenhouse emissions, instead of letting lame-brained leftyist anti-market solutions muck it up even worse. One quick and easy method would be to apply the accounting principle of future value for remediation of greenhouse gases done today, as well as factoring future valuations into present-day increased greenhouse gas emissions. That would greatly reduce the balance sheet liability for the cost of remediation, and place the burden where it belonged. See how easy that is?
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron