Leafless Posted November 9, 2006 Report Posted November 9, 2006 Donald Rumsfeld is bearing the brunt of 'a screwed up Iraq war' though no fault of his own but is owed directly to a backward Iraq insurgency. Perhaps the initial fault in all of this is that the U.S. and it's allies did not come down hard enough on Iraq initially and eliminate more of the source relating to insurgents. Sometimes a more humane lighter war along along with allowing the population to sort out it's internal problems, does not pay as is the case with Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld served his country well and served as both the youngest and the oldest Secretary of Defense and is a shame to see this man sidelined and forced to resign in this manner. Condescending media reports are already beginning to surface as Mr.Rumsfeld legacy being "the guy who mucked up Iraq" being absolutely shameful. Looks like Mr. Rumsfeld biggest mistake was ignoring the importance of all those 'virgins in heaven'. http://www.fcw.com/article96755-11-08-06-Web http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm Quote
Black Dog Posted November 9, 2006 Report Posted November 9, 2006 Donald Rumsfeld is bearing the brunt of 'a screwed up Iraq war' though no fault of his own but is owed directly to a backward Iraq insurgency. Perhaps the initial fault in all of this is that the U.S. and it's allies did not come down hard enough on Iraq initially and eliminate more of the source relating to insurgents. Hmmm...and who d'ya suppose is to blame for that? Oh yeah: Rummy. It was Rumsfeld who decided, against the advice of those commanders in the field, to commit to a small force in Iraq, one that was more than capable of defeating Saddam's pitiful army, but was far to small for the job of occupying a country. His initial sin was bad enough, but he compounded it by constantly underestimating the size, make up and commitment of the insurgency, and refusing to heed the voices of those with a btter grasp of the situation. If history remembers him only as a failure and the man who botched the job in Iraq, I think history will be too kind. I am curious: what exactly did Rumsfeld do well? And don't say anything about how beating Saddam's army in three weeks was a military triumph. A small group of Quakers armed with harsh language could have done it in four. Quote
Leafless Posted November 9, 2006 Author Report Posted November 9, 2006 I am curious: what exactly did Rumsfeld do well? And don't say anything about how beating Saddam's army in three weeks was a military triumph. A small group of Quakers armed with harsh language could have done it in four. I am curious to see what miracles the Democrats are going to suggest be implemented in Iraq. Iraq is one strange place. It's population has adjusted to the violent oppressive tactics of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship and any other form of government outside of violence and oppression it seems is seen by many Iraqis as not being welcome. It appears backward Iraqis cannot handle freedom and democracy and this I predict will be a major stumbling block for years to come. Donald Rumsfeld could have accomplished more if it was not Turkey disallowing U.S. 4th infantry to come through Turkey from the north resulting in a lot more Baathists being captured or killed and the insurgency to-day would have been probably less intense. What Donald Rumsfeld actually did along with U.S. allies was: 1.- Free 25-million Iraqi's. 2.-Established a strong Dinar with the economy on the rebound. 3.- Opened universities, schools, hospitals and clinics. 4.-Completion of 600 reconstruction projects. 5.-Re-introduced Iraq's pertaining to law and order as police, operational military, border guards , civil defense duties. I think Rumsfeld did remarkably well under the conditions and outside of perhaps a greater more intense attack initially, I doubt if anyone else could do a better job. I don't agree with your description of "Saddam's pitiful army" who took refuge with the civilian population and fought from civilian neighbourhood's creating problems for the U.S. and it's allies. In fact insurgent tactics are pretty much the same as these murdering cowards continue to take out members of their own population and hiding among their own civilian population as well. All the forces in the forces in the world would be hard pressed to permanently clean out this bunch of ignorant,backward nut cases outside of total annihilation. And we don't want that , do we? Quote
jdobbin Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Donald Rumsfeld served his country well and served as both the youngest and the oldest Secretary of Defense and is a shame to see this man sidelined and forced to resign in this manner.Condescending media reports are already beginning to surface as Mr.Rumsfeld legacy being "the guy who mucked up Iraq" being absolutely shameful. Looks like Mr. Rumsfeld biggest mistake was ignoring the importance of all those 'virgins in heaven'. I will do what Donald Rumsfeld used to do in in interviews: answer my own questions. Did the Iraq fighting end in six month like Rumsfeld said? No. Is Iraq safer than it was a year a go? No. A year before that? No. Were weapons of mass destruction found? No. Is Iraq's government capable of taking care of itself? No. Are U.S. troops likely to have a prospect for not getting killed at the same rate of 2 to 4 a day indefinitely. No. Is the violence in Iraq sectarian, possibly civil war. Yes. Were there enough troops to ensure the peace? No. Are tactics working in the war? Is Rumsfeld an arrogant and condescending man? Yes. Was it necessary for him to resign after 6 years? Yes. Quote
GostHacked Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Bush held on to Rummy as long as he needed him. Same thing happened essentialy with Colin Powel. But Rummy is not completly innocent and he should have been taken out along time ago. But now who is this Devil we don't know? It was politicly motivated 100%. But interesting to see what happens. Quote
newbie Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 What Donald Rumsfeld actually did along with U.S. allies was: 1.- Free 25-million Iraqi's. 2.-Established a strong Dinar with the economy on the rebound. 3.- Opened universities, schools, hospitals and clinics. 4.-Completion of 600 reconstruction projects. 5.-Re-introduced Iraq's pertaining to law and order as police, operational military, border guards , civil defense duties. If you're going to attribute those points above to old Rummy, you also have to tag on the tens of thousands of (maybe 100's of thousands) deaths of innocents, and of course U.S. and allied deaths. You truly can have it both ways. Quote
sharkman Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 David Frum wrote a book on his time in the White House, and in speaking of Rumsfeld, said his mind truly sparkled. I found this to be true whenever Rumsfeld was at a press conference. The press would try to ask embarrassing quetions or trick him but he always mopped up the floor with them. Quote
jdobbin Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 David Frum wrote a book on his time in the White House, and in speaking of Rumsfeld, said his mind truly sparkled. I found this to be true whenever Rumsfeld was at a press conference. The press would try to ask embarrassing quetions or trick him but he always mopped up the floor with them. And subsequently it was his record in Iraq that lead to the Republican defeat. And that is according to people like McCain. Quote
August1991 Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 I am curious: what exactly did Rumsfeld do well? And don't say anything about how beating Saddam's army in three weeks was a military triumph. A small group of Quakers armed with harsh language could have done it in four.Monday morning quarterback.The guy took many troops at first, then not enough. WTF? And of course Rumsfeld decided all this alone in the back of his limo on a yellow legal pad. Right. A while ago, I bought Weinberger's remaindered autobiography "In the Arena". It was a good read. Rumsfeld "served" his country in the same way. He was ambitious and organized. These guys are focussed machines. Rumsfeld was on the right side and he did what he could as best he could. I wouldn't fault the guy. (BTW, I was against the US invasion of Iraq and I agreed with Chretien's decision not to participate.) All things considered, the Americans have done well in Iraq. In the worst case scenario, they put popcorn among the monkeys. They've also scared the bejeebers out of tyrants and foreigners alike. Americans have the power and they're not afraid to use it. (Criminals should be afraid of the police.) On the upside, Iraq is not a Lebanese Civil War. It may become one and the Iraqis have yet to figure out how they'll make their country work. In particular, the Sunni Iraqis are learning to live like White South Africans after apartheid. But then Iraqis are sophisticated and Iraq is the only Arab non-Gulf State with oil. Rumsfeld is tired and knows that Bush needs new advice. Rene Levesque famously said that the indispensable man is buried six feet under. America is far more than one guy. In two years, there'll be a new president. Democrat or Republican? No one knows now. America is a great country. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 They've also scared the bejeebers out of tyrants and foreigners alike. Americans have the power and they're not afraid to use it.Not everybody is so convinced. Bush and Israel, Midwives to Radical IslamThe dogged resistance by bands of irregular fighters, disciplined in battle and indoctrinated with radical Islam, has seen Washington’s most vociferous enemies, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, lionized throughout the region. This resistance has eroded the power of pro-Western regimes in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. -SNIP- The blunders by Israel and the United States have left Iran as the undisputed leader in the Muslim world. These blunders have empowered the radical Islamic groups allied with Iran and have indeed ushered in the birth of a new Middle East, one that understands that the days of Israel and Washington’s hegemony in the region are doomed. Chris Hedges Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
gerryhatrick Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 He was good for a laugh. It sure looks like a good thing for the military down there. They're not liking him one bit. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
August1991 Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Bush and Israel, Midwives to Radical IslamAppeasement is better?He was good for a laugh. It sure looks like a good thing for the military down there. They're not liking him one bit. Easy to criticize, Gerry. What do you suggest we do? Agree with the sexist homophobes?Gerry, you talk a tough line against guys like Harper but when it comes to the mullahs, you're suddenly silent. Why? Quote
gerryhatrick Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 He was good for a laugh. It sure looks like a good thing for the military down there. They're not liking him one bit. Easy to criticize, Gerry. What do you suggest we do? Agree with the sexist homophobes?Gerry, you talk a tough line against guys like Harper but when it comes to the mullahs, you're suddenly silent. Why? Well August1991, that's an interesting thing you're attempting to set up there. Maybe you can explain to me please, are all of the people fed up with Rumsfeld on side with the mullahs? Is that the way you see it? You've just insulted a good chunk of the US military. Quote Conservative Party of Canada taking image advice from US Republican pollster: http://allpoliticsnow.com
Black Dog Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Iraq is one strange place. It's population has adjusted to the violent oppressive tactics of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship and any other form of government outside of violence and oppression it seems is seen by many Iraqis as not being welcome. It appears backward Iraqis cannot handle freedom and democracy and this I predict will be a major stumbling block for years to come. Ah yes, when all else fails, blame the wogs. Donald Rumsfeld could have accomplished more if it was not Turkey disallowing U.S. 4th infantry to come through Turkey from the north resulting in a lot more Baathists being captured or killed and the insurgency to-day would have been probably less intense. Good leaders adapt and above all, they plan ahead. it seems Rummy did neither. And I'll tell you this: the insurgency owes more to the decision to disband the Iraqi Army and "de-Bathify" its civil infrastructure than it does to Turkey's refusal to be used as a staging ground. 1.- Free 25-million Iraqi's. yeah: free to stay in their homes, free to slaughter ther neigbours... 2.-Established a strong Dinar with the economy on the rebound. Given the state of Iraq's economy, choked by sanctions and corruption as it was, it was ahrd to go anywhere but up. But the oil (which Iraq's economy depends on) isn't pumping unemplymet is as high as 60% in some areas, and may lack basic thing sliek power or access to water. heckuva job. 3.- Opened universities, schools, hospitals and clinics. Good thing, because they need somewhere to put the bodies. 4.-Completion of 600 reconstruction projects. The failure of Iraq's reconstruction. 5.-Re-introduced Iraq's pertaining to law and order as police, operational military, border guards , civil defense duties You forgot to add "sectarian death squads". I think Rumsfeld did remarkably well under the conditions and outside of perhaps a greater more intense attack initially, I doubt if anyone else could do a better job. Au contraire I think just about anybody could have. I don't agree with your description of "Saddam's pitiful army" who took refuge with the civilian population and fought from civilian neighbourhood's creating problems for the U.S. and it's allies. In fact insurgent tactics are pretty much the same as these murdering cowards continue to take out members of their own population and hiding among their own civilian population as well The majority of Iraq's army simply upand quit. There's a few hardcore fighters who went underground, but they are only part of a diverse insurgecy. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 The guy took many troops at first, then not enough. WTF? The invasion was a mistake in the first place, IMO. But, once it was decided on, it was porly conducted. Not hard to grasp. And of course Rumsfeld decided all this alone in the back of his limo on a yellow legal pad. Right. As Sec Def he bore a large portion of the responsibility. A while ago, I bought Weinberger's remaindered autobiography "In the Arena". It was a good read. Rumsfeld "served" his country in the same way. He was ambitious and organized. These guys are focussed machines. "Ambitious and organized" doesn't mean "competent". Rummy's previous work as SecDef is nothing to write home about. Rumsfeld was on the right side and he did what he could as best he could. I wouldn't fault the guy. (BTW, I was against the US invasion of Iraq and I agreed with Chretien's decision not to participate.) On what do you base this? They've also scared the bejeebers out of tyrants and foreigners alike. Americans have the power and they're not afraid to use it. (Criminals should be afraid of the police. Was tehre ever doubt about this before? Has the invasion of Iraq deterred anybody (say Qaddafi and I'll scream)? Iran and North Korea seem undeterred. If anything Iraq has demonstrated the limits of American power and exposed its weaknesses. Appeasement is better? Appeasement in itself may be good or bad according to the circumstances. Appeasement from weakness and fear is alike futile and fatal. Appeasement from strength is magnanimous and noble, and might be the surest and only path to world peace.—Winston Churchill, 1950 Easy to criticize, Gerry. What do you suggest we do? Agree with the sexist homophobes?Gerry, you talk a tough line against guys like Harper but when it comes to the mullahs, you're suddenly silent. Why? "Play the ball not the man." Quote
Leafless Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Posted November 10, 2006 They've also scared the bejeebers out of tyrants and foreigners alike. Americans have the power and they're not afraid to use it.Not everybody is so convinced. Bush and Israel, Midwives to Radical IslamThe dogged resistance by bands of irregular fighters, disciplined in battle and indoctrinated with radical Islam, has seen Washington’s most vociferous enemies, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, lionized throughout the region. This resistance has eroded the power of pro-Western regimes in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. -SNIP- The blunders by Israel and the United States have left Iran as the undisputed leader in the Muslim world. These blunders have empowered the radical Islamic groups allied with Iran and have indeed ushered in the birth of a new Middle East, one that understands that the days of Israel and Washington’s hegemony in the region are doomed. Chris Hedges Chris Hedges is a pacifist who is a graduate from Harvard Divinity School and who's father was a Presbyterian Minister. He was also captured by the Iraqi's and Central America. I wouldn't be doing back flips concerning anything this guy writes. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Chris Hedges is a pacifist who is a graduate from Harvard Divinity School and who's father was a Presbyterian Minister. Eh...no. Hedges, who speaks Arabic and spent seven years in the Middle East, most of them as the Middle East Bureau Chief for The New York Times, was an early and vocal critic of the plan to invade and occupy Iraq. He questioned the rationale for war by the Bush administration and was critical of the early press coverage, calling it "shameful cheerleading." .. Hedges, who is not a pacifist and supports humanitarian interventions, such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo designed to stop campaigns of genocide, nevertheless describes war as "the most potent narcotic invented by humankind." He was also captured by the Iraqi's and Central America. Nope. "I began covering insurgenices in El Salvador, where I spent five years, then on to Guatemala and Nicaragua and Colombia, through the first intifada in the West Bank and Gaza, the civil war in the Sudan and Yemen, the uprisings in Algeria and the Punjab, the fall of the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, the Gulf War, the Kurdish rebellion in southeast Turkey and northern Iraq, the war in Bosnia, and finally Kosovo. I have been in ambushes on despolate streteches of Central American roads, shot at in the marshes of southern Iraq, imprisoned in the Sudan, beaten by Saudi military police, deported from Libya and Iran, captured and held for a week by the Iraqi Republican Guard during the Shiite rebellion following the Gulf War, strafed by Russian Mig-21s in Bosnia, fired upon by Serb snipers, and shelled for days in Sarajevo with deafening rounds of heavy artillery that threw out thousands of deadly bits of iron fragments. I have seen too much of violent death. I have tasted too much of my own fear. I have painful memories that lie buried and untouched most of the time. It is never easy when they surface." I wouldn't be doing back flips concerning anything this guy writes. Chris Hedges has forgotten more about war than you'll eve rknow. Quote
Leafless Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Posted November 10, 2006 What Donald Rumsfeld actually did along with U.S. allies was: 1.- Free 25-million Iraqi's. 2.-Established a strong Dinar with the economy on the rebound. 3.- Opened universities, schools, hospitals and clinics. 4.-Completion of 600 reconstruction projects. 5.-Re-introduced Iraq's pertaining to law and order as police, operational military, border guards , civil defense duties. If you're going to attribute those points above to old Rummy, you also have to tag on the tens of thousands of (maybe 100's of thousands) deaths of innocents, and of course U.S. and allied deaths. You truly can have it both ways. What do deaths have to do with anything and forget the deaths of civilians as any war produces casualties. You also have a short memory as Saddam was given the opportunity to surrender before the actual war began but declined. All these deaths could have been avoided. Anyways the question was: "What did Rumsfeld do well." Quote
Leafless Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Posted November 10, 2006 Good leaders adapt and above all, they plan ahead. it seems Rummy did neither. And I'll tell you this: the insurgency owes more to the decision to disband the Iraqi Army and "de-Bathify" its civil infrastructure than it does to Turkey's refusal to be used as a staging ground. I will reiterate: "Iraq is one strange place." The U.S. and it's allies went into Iraq to topple Saddam and search out Al Qaeda terrorist. It turns out the U.S. and allies are basically fighting Islamic fascist. This as transformed into a war of civilizations and where it will go from here, no one is quite sure. Rumsfeld did his part well as no one in the WORLD has the capability to plan ahead concerning this conflict or even truly coming to grips with the enormous volatile ramifications this initial conflict has presented. Quote
jdobbin Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 I will reiterate: "Iraq is one strange place." The U.S. and it's allies went into Iraq to topple Saddam and search out Al Qaeda terrorist. It turns out the U.S. and allies are basically fighting Islamic fascist. This as transformed into a war of civilizations and where it will go from here, no one is quite sure. Rumsfeld did his part well as no one in the WORLD has the capability to plan ahead concerning this conflict or even truly coming to grips with the enormous volatile ramifications this initial conflict has presented. Actually they did have the ability to plan ahead. Rumsfeld ignored the advice of the military leaders. He ignored advice from the State department. He ignored his critics. He ignored his allies. And now the U.S. is stuck in Iraq. Quote
Leafless Posted November 10, 2006 Author Report Posted November 10, 2006 Chris Hedges is a pacifist who is a graduate from Harvard Divinity School and who's father was a Presbyterian Minister. Eh...no. I guess it depends on your source of info. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hedges.html Quote
Black Dog Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 The U.S. and it's allies went into Iraq to topple Saddam and search out Al Qaeda terrorist. Al Qaeda? I thought it was WMD. Either way, though, Iraq had neither. It turns out the U.S. and allies are basically fighting Islamic fascist. What is this Islamic Fascist of which you speak? Rumsfeld did his part well as no one in the WORLD has the capability to plan ahead concerning this conflict or even truly coming to grips with the enormous volatile ramifications this initial conflict has presented. That's bullshit. Anyone with any knowledge of Iraq could have forseen that the breaking the Sunni hegemony would spelll trouble. And you know what? They did. But folks like Rummy didn't listen. I guess it depends on your source of info.http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hedges.html Can you highlight the relevant quote which led you to your conclusion? Because the word pacifist isn't mentioned at all. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 That's bullshit. Anyone with any knowledge of Iraq could have forseen that the breaking the Sunni hegemony would spelll trouble. And you know what? They did. But folks like Rummy didn't listen. Good one Mr. Hindsight. Just because you and the lefty pantywaistes can't handle a tough struggle doesn't mean we should all be trying our best to run away in the opposite direction at the first sign of difficulty. We need to up the presence in that assbackwards part of the world - no quesiton about it. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Good one Mr. Hindsight. Good one Mr. Plagarist Just because you and the lefty pantywaistes can't handle a tough struggle doesn't mean we should all be trying our best to run away in the opposite direction at the first sign of difficulty.We need to up the presence in that assbackwards part of the world - no quesiton about it. And by "we" you mean "somebody else". But hey, you can do your part too. Quote
JerrySeinfeld Posted November 10, 2006 Report Posted November 10, 2006 Good one Mr. Hindsight. Good one Mr. Plagarist Just because you and the lefty pantywaistes can't handle a tough struggle doesn't mean we should all be trying our best to run away in the opposite direction at the first sign of difficulty.We need to up the presence in that assbackwards part of the world - no quesiton about it. And by "we" you mean "somebody else". But hey, you can do your part too. Typical lefty view - ghettoizing the war like Mr. Kerry. The only people who wage war are soldiers? LOL. Maybe in lefty ivorytowerland. NATIONS wage war my friend. And that means you don't send Kerry's interpretation of white trash overseas , then stab their mission in the back while stating that you "support the troops". Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.