Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 139

Thread: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

  1. #31
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    So you're for democracy and against torture, but you just don't have the stomach to actually do something about it. Got it.

    Those poor people in Darfur will just have to keep dying by the thousands. Not our problem.

    Too bad those people aren't whales or pit bulls or........trees. You know, the things liberals REALLY care about.
    Democracy includes what the people want. Most of VN wanted us to leave them alone and let them settle it. Too often your side misunderstands freedom, and think it means us imposing our will on another country. As we've seen in the ME, democracy doesn't always give us what we think it will.

    We'd have been better off simply working with VN and letting them settle their own governance. But, by all means, go over the clift and mindlessly play to the sterotype.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #32
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Bull****

    You bombed the living hell of everything in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and you didn't win there.

    Take that argument and shove it up your ass.

    You win nothing by killing the innocent.
    From a military perspective, we won. That war was, "lost", on the political stage. That's what happens when lilly-livered politicians think that wars can be decided politically.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #33
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Allow me to repeat: BULL ****!!!!

    Any historical reading of vietnam shows we drop a ton of ordinace. We killed a lot of people. There was little humane about it. And it was useless. We had not adapted to a new type of warfare.
    The same historical reading will tell you that those targets were picked for political reasons, not tactical reasons.

    We did drop a ton of ordnance and kill a lot of people. We dropped several more tons harmlessly in the woods and killed a few monkies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #34
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    It amazes me when people can even try and compare World War 2 to wars like Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan...

    "Well we won that one"

    Yeah well it was a completely different kind of war. Conventional vs. Unconventional I.E. Geurilla/Insurgency vs. Tank battles in the fields of normandy against an opponent that was equal.
    Why is that, "different", from a tactical point of view. No matter who your enemy is, the objective of any army, is to destroy the enemy's will and ability to wage war. i.e. do more damage to him than he does to you, in a shorter period of time. That's warfare 101.

    "Winning hearts and minds", is stupid. They already hate us. There's nothing we're going to do to fix that. Bombing the crap out of them isn't going to make them hate us anymore than they arlready do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #35
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,322
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Why is that, "different", from a tactical point of view. No matter who your enemy is, the objective of any army, is to destroy the enemy's will and ability to wage war. i.e. do more damage to him than he does to you, in a shorter period of time. That's warfare 101.

    "Winning hearts and minds", is stupid. They already hate us. There's nothing we're going to do to fix that. Bombing the crap out of them isn't going to make them hate us anymore than they arlready do.
    The only answer is to kill everyone if they hate you all.

    Are you prepared to have that on your conciense?

  6. #36
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:04 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,484
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We didn't have aproblem of not having enough military. It was a planning problem. An approach problem.
    You said the following... now you wish to backtrack?
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059269913
    His comment about going to war with the amry you have highlights this.
    Sure they did. Would anyone have expected anything different? Seriously? And the problems were predicted. Even Bush sr stated going into Iraq would be easy, leaving hard. Your side keeps acting like no one knew or expected the problems. That simply isn't true.
    Gulf War 1 you Libs were all worried about the College Boys. Remember?
    There are always challenges going to war. Always. The biggest is the anti-American left and their Betrayus type behavior. They vote to send troops and then stab them in the back. A vote of political expediency, and treason for the same reason.

    Seriously, not a good one, or a complete one, or one that accounted for what was reasonable to expect.
    Again, a non-answer. They had plans by military planners. They had plans for years. Plans can never account for all variables. War is not instant soup.


    See above.
    See above.


    Like too many, you misread Tenet. The slam dunk as wmds as an excuse. It was not a slam dunk as to the factual evidence. tenet himself clarified that alter, but frankly most you have caught that in context. They were talking about reasons to go into Iraq, Bush notes there is not enough evidence. Tenet argues it will work as an excuse, and says it is a slam dunk.
    Woodward wrote that Bush challenged those around him. There were reasons to have gone into Iraq years before. David Kay spelled them out well... as did Hans Blix. After 911 and connect-the-dots, Saddam was a serious threat even in the minds of many Dems. After years of Clinton wagging his finger and doing nothing (which emboldened terrorists)... Bush drew a line in the sand. Saddam had his chances and didn't take them. Perhaps because the UN proved to be as corrupt as he was... Oil-for-food anyone?
    And after Clinton bombed, his people said the threat was ended, over. A lot of people believed Saddam had some left over wmds. A lot fewer, to very few, actually believed he was growing and gathering. And when you take into account the state of his infastructure, there was no liklely hood he was the kind of threat Bush made him out to be.
    No, no, no... Hillary was 100% behind Bush, ans claimed inside info.

    CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

    CORNYN:
    First, would you agree that not only are our intelligence agencies but Democrats, Republicans, President Clinton, President Bush, France, Germany, Britain all believed that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD?

    KAY: I think that's true.

    CORNYN: And until your report after your long work with the Iraqi Survey Group, have you found that any one of those people or groups that I have identified have in fact learned that it was not true, but nevertheless tried to manipulate it and present it as fact for some improper purpose?

    KAY: No, I know of no manipulation. I know of a lot of skepticism. And because it was such a widely held view and wanting to know the facts, I view that as absolutely appropriate.

    CORNYN: So you know of no evidence, no indication that anyone tried to intentionally manipulate the intelligence that we got in order to justify going to war in Iraq.

    KAY: I've seen no evidence of that...

    CORNYN: Let me just try to nail down a couple of other facts.

    CORNYN: ...Saddam -- ...did continue research on chemical and biological and even nuclear weapons, correct?

    KAY: Absolutely.

    CORNYN: Would you say, then, Dr. Kay, that it was just a matter of time before Saddam would build such stockpiles or have that capability in a way that would threaten not only people in Iraq, but people in that neighborhood and perhaps others?

    KAY: I think you will have, when you get the final ISG report, pretty compelling evidence that Saddam had the intention of continuing the pursuit of WMD when the opportunity arose and that the first start on that, the long pole in the tent, was this restart of the long-range missile program.

    CORNYN: So that, given time, these programs would have matured and Saddam would have been able to reconstitute his WMD arsenal?

    KAY: I hesitate, Senator -- only I think that that's the safe assumption. What I don't know over time, and I'm more and more struck with, is how corrupt and destructive that society had become. But you can't count on when it would fall apart. And it might fall apart in ways that are far more dangerous. So I think that is a safe assumption.

    CORNYN: You said something during your opening statement that intrigues me, and something that I'm afraid may be overlooked in all of this back and forth; and that has to do with proliferation.

    You said that there was a risk of a willing seller meeting a willing buyer of such weapons or weapon stockpiles, whether they be large, small or programs, whether it's information that Iraqi scientists might be willing to sell or work in cooperation with rogue organizations or even nations.

    But do you consider that to have been a real risk in terms of Saddam's activities and these programs -- the risk of proliferation?


    KAY: Actually, I consider it a bigger risk. And that's why I paused on the preceding questions. I consider that a bigger risk than the restart of his programs being successful.

    KAY: I think the way the society was going, and the number of willing buyers in the market, that that probably was a risk that if we did avoid, we barely avoided.

    I beg to differ, You're drinking the koolaid doesn't destory the list. Sorry.
    If you read the above between Cornyn and Kay... who is drinking what?

    Do I need to produce the CNN transcript of Blix stating he believed Saddam was hiding WMD? That he was still playing games? That he was not cooperating. That he had produced WEAPONIZED VX or ANTHRAX?

    Do I?

    Now, would you like to try again son?

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 02-09-11 at 04:20 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  7. #37
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means.” - Carl von Clausewitz.

    Whether we like it or not, warfare will always be an integral part of politics and policy. That is just the God's-honest truth. As for Rumsfeld, one of the worst SecDefs of all time. Most of the reviews I've read about the book seem to paint a picture of him just trying to place blame on others.

  8. #38
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    I've got mixed feelings on Rumsfeld but I do believe he's a man of serious conviction, which I can respect even if I don't always agree. I also loved this quote from him ""As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." But he should be more acknowledging of mistakes that were made under his leadership during the early years in Iraq.
    Best line I've heard so far about the book: Rumsfeld is an even worse memoirist than he was Sec. of Defense!

    Funny...if he was SOOOOO good at being Secretary of Defense, why are we still fighting two wars he started but couldn't finish?

  9. #39
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Great man Rummy, and his bit about not wanting to be in the same foxhole as Clinton, Kerry, Biden is a kind way of saying they're treasonous, politically motivated back stabbers.
    Rummy was a Rep and they're Dems, so what else would you expect in the land of dirty politics. Fortunately the Dems rarely resort to inane gotchas, or nothing would get done in Congress...

    By the way I wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with anyone again. Thankfully, those kinds of wars are in the past.

  10. #40
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Exclusive: Rumsfeld unloads

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    You said the following... now you wish to backtrack?
    No.

    Gulf War 1 you Libs were all worried about the College Boys. Remember?
    There are always challenges going to war. Always. The biggest is the anti-American left and their Betrayus type behavior. They vote to send troops and then stab them in the back. A vote of political expediency, and treason for the same reason.
    Can't speak for anyone else. Do you even know where I stood during Gulf war 1? Look, I know that attacking people is easier than addressing points and logically working your way through an argument. I understand. Hard stuff. But I don't care about anyone's grouping and naming of people. Not a thing. I would prefer you address points made.

    Again, a non-answer. They had plans by military planners. They had plans for years. Plans can never account for all variables. War is not instant soup.
    Again, if you don't account for KNOWN variables and PREDICTED probabilities, then you don't really have a plan worthy of mention. It doesn't matter who we're talking about.


    See above.
    You too.

    Woodward wrote that Bush challenged those around him. There were reasons to have gone into Iraq years before. David Kay spelled them out well... as did Hans Blix. After 911 and connect-the-dots, Saddam was a serious threat even in the minds of many Dems. After years of Clinton wagging his finger and doing nothing (which emboldened terrorists)... Bush drew a line in the sand. Saddam had his chances and didn't take them. Perhaps because the UN proved to be as corrupt as he was... Oil-for-food anyone?
    Not entirely true. Saddam was a boggie man. We have plenty of evidence that we, the US, did not really see him as a serious threat (as opposed to absolutely no threat). We allowed him to smuggle for example. If we were really worried we wouldn't have. Also, we knew how much was destoryed. Not everything, but enough to know he was growing. And too often democrats are taken out of context and rather selectively (snopes speaks of this in their assesssment). And no, Saddam really had no realistic way of ever not being invaded.

    No, no, no... Hillary was 100% behind Bush, ans claimed inside info.
    And now you accept her as speaking the gospel?


    If you read the above between Cornyn and Kay... who is drinking what?

    Do I need to produce the CNN transcript of Blix stating he believed Saddam was hiding WMD? That he was still playing games? That he was not cooperating. That he had produced WEAPONIZED VX or ANTHRAX?

    Do I?
    No, you're still drinking the koolaid. We've all seen the final report. Nothing was found to match the claims. Nothing. And we can produce all the evidence Bush had to the contrary before invading aas well, if you want to go down that route. This is not really up for much debate. Saddam was not the threat claim, and before we forget waht we were talking about, the slam dunk comment was not about there being weapons, as even Bush noted there wasn't enough evidence for that, but that we'd accept that reasoning for invading. It was about selling us a war.

    Now, would you like to try again son?
    I'm not your son jr, but you have not effectively disputed anything. Sorry.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •