What a failure he was...twice.
Any Bush is just an even bigger idiot for letting him have a second chance.
Any Bush is just an even bigger idiot for letting him have a second chance.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 2 terms in service as Sec Def, Thanks Rummy.
Rumsfeld did fairly well considering the situation.
however, i believe the current situation is hopeless until a terrorist manages to set off a nuke in a large city, then the world will open its eyes and see the problem. Right now most of the Islamic population won't turn in terrorists even if they're testing explosives in their back yard. Threaten to destroy a city that has obviously been providing terrorists with a safe haven and the so called 'moderates' will begin turning in those terrorists constantly. It is impossible to win a war without civilian casualties, and avoiding civilian casualties does nothing more than prolong a war, or possibly postpone (in the case of the first gulf war)
it will eventually come down to someone setting off a nuke, and i would much prefer it be us than the terrorists who throw the first punch
however, i believe the current situation is hopeless until a terrorist manages to set off a nuke in a large city, then the world will open its eyes and see the problem. Right now most of the Islamic population won't turn in terrorists even if they're testing explosives in their back yard. Threaten to destroy a city that has obviously been providing terrorists with a safe haven and the so called 'moderates' will begin turning in those terrorists constantly. It is impossible to win a war without civilian casualties, and avoiding civilian casualties does nothing more than prolong a war, or possibly postpone (in the case of the first gulf war)
it will eventually come down to someone setting off a nuke, and i would much prefer it be us than the terrorists who throw the first punch
The dudes got a point.
I personally think he could of done better if he didn't care about politics. The US invaded the wrong country IMO, they should have invaded Iran.
I see now. You're trying to turn WoT into WWII + The Cold War - a way to indisciriminately attack all PLUS drag the war on for decades upon decades!fadedsteve wrote:
Because we didnt harm innocents during WWII?? Fire fuck bombing German cities without any military targets certainly killed innocents. . . .you do remember that right?? Bombing the populace into submission??? Because those two nukes we dropped on Japan were on military targets right(sarcasm)?? But that was okay cause it was WWII I would imagine. . . . a just war. In most of your liberal minds the war on terror isnt a just war, therefore civilians lives matter more than our troops.JahManRed wrote:
So indiscriminately massacring civilians is going to calm the whole situation down? listen to yourself man! Seriously, did you foam at the mouth while typing that enlightening strategy?fadedsteve wrote:
It may sound harsh, but we should threaten nukes, and fight fire with fire ENOUGH OF THE TALK, TALK HAS GOTTEN US NOWHERE!! Pandering and being the nice guy hasnt gotten the desired response we have been looking for. The jihadists want war, and war is what we should give them! Unabashed combat, reminisent of WWII. . . .Carbet bombing of large persian/arab cities, tactical nukes if necessary, ground forces with very to little ROE as far as dealing with terrorist strongholds.
Innocents have to die in situations like this! When the enemy imbeds itself into the urban sprawl, they are going to die. . . . that is the aweful part of urban warfare. Warfare is the degredation of humanity, but unfortunately IT HAS TO HAPPEN!
Someone said that we are fighting an idiology. . . .yes, that is true, but when an entire region of the world supports for the most part that idiology, thats a problem!! Believe me, if I thought this problem could be solved diplomatically, I wouldnt be writing this!!! But we have exhausted all diplomatic possiblities!! The diplomatic talk keeps going round and round in circles, while countries like Iran keep building up their arsenal.
I guess my question is, when does the talk stop?? Do we have to wait till we get drilled again, or one of our allies gets hit again?? I mean seriously, when is enough. . . . enough??? Do we honestly need another 9/11? Do we need another holocaust to show people??
Jesus H. Christ !! Iran is having a summit to discount the frigging holocaust!! Are you kidding me?? They claim 6 million people DIDNT die. . . . hmmm, and these people can be negotiated with. . . .
Its only a matter of time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The only reason it might be like this is that you fool yourself that it might be like this.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Don't even compare the two wars. One was a just campaign to stop the third Reich from spreading across Europe and the Globe and the to prevent the extermination of many ethnic groups. The people who fought in those wars fought for freedom, not for oil & regime change dressed up in a veil of Bush's Buzz words.fadedsteve wrote:
Because we didn't harm innocents during WWII?? Fire fuck bombing German cities without any military targets certainly killed innocents. . . .you do remember that right?? Bombing the populace into submission??? Because those two nukes we dropped on Japan were on military targets right(sarcasm)?? But that was okay cause it was WWII I would imagine. . . . a just war. In most of your liberal minds the war on terror isn't a just war, therefore civilians lives matter more than our troops.
The victor of any war is the one who writes the favorable history. Dropping an atomic bomb on a city of civilians who are ruled by a totalitarianism regime (Ie no say in who their leaders are) is wrong under any guise. Doesn't matter how your historians write and dress it.
Why is it a problem. If a "whole region of the world supports for the most part that idiology" ?? A whole region of the world supports Capitalism and Imperialism and thats no problem. The problems occur when you go and stick your fucking nose into other peoples ideology and stir up the hornets nest..........then step back, get stung and advocate blowing the nest up along with a few other cities just to make sure.fadedsteve wrote:
Someone said that we are fighting an idiology. . . .yes, that is true, but when an entire region of the world supports for the most part that idiology, thats a problem!! Believe me, if I thought this problem could be solved diplomatically, I wouldnt be writing this!!! But we have exhausted all diplomatic possiblities!! The diplomatic talk keeps going round and round in circles, while countries like Iran keep building up their arsenal.
Dropping the A bomb was wrong. If they had dropped the A bomb on a military target to scare the Japanese into surrender I would agree. But your whole middle eastern strategy is justified in your mind by a terribly wrong event that you have been brainwashed into believing saved hundreds of thousands of American solders lives. It did, but dropping the bomb on a Navel Base would have been more akin to the rules of war and the Geneva conventions. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Diplomacy was never given a chance in the middle east. Simply blow the fuck outa the place for awhile, shit that didn't work, lets install a corrupt west friendly government and police force, that didn't work, lets blow the shit outa the place some more, that didn't work, ok now lets nuke some cities, that won't work either!!! What do you think would happen if an Arab city was nuked? You don't really care steve because you have 8000 miles of land and sea to separate you, so you can come out with brash statements. But let me tell you, American Arabs, people who call themselves Americans and are proud to do so will turn to extremism and bring a shit storm to your front door step.fadedsteve wrote:
Believe me, if I thought this problem could be solved diplomatically, I wouldnt be writing this!!!.
My spelling sucks but I find it quite ironic that you spell ideology closer to Idio-t
fadedsteve wrote:
idiology
Last edited by JahManRed (2006-12-10 04:40:01)
When will people learn, you cannot have a war on terror. just like you cant have a war on drugs. You guys talk about terrorism as though it is a nation we can simply bomb into submission.fadedsteve wrote:
In most of your liberal minds the war on terror isnt a just war
I'm not complete hippie pussy, I say this as a pragmatist, the wars we are waging are only serving to create more terrorists. Bombing an already poor country into an even poorer state doesn't make happy people. Collateral damage, even in the name of spreading democracy, doesn't make happy people. violence tends to make more violence.
If you're ready to kill every muslim on the face of the earth, then go for it, but that probably wont solve the problem either. We're better off letting them kill each other because the only people Muslims love to more than Americans are other Muslims. They're better off divided between themselves, than united against us.
jahmanred: I see your from Ireland, I myself am Irish(grandma's from Galway) and am proud to be so. . .
Now on to business. . . .
I see your points, and they are valid, as are mine. However, all I see is countering what I have said. I see nothing in terms of your plan to stop these crazy people. Living in a bubble, and putting up walls and isolating ones country doesnt defeat the jihadists either (we learned that the hard way. . . see 9/11). My point is we are fighting people who only respond to violence. They view diplomacy is buying time for their next military strike (ie Iran/al-Qaeda/Hezbollah etc). They have no plans for peace until the globe is subjugated under islam!! My question is when does the madness in the middle east stop??? Is it going to take a nuke from Iran onto Tel Aviv to do so?? I dont know if you know this, but they are very public about attacking Israel, and "destroying an illegitimate state". I am not saying we should start spraying nukes likes insecticide, but I am saying they might be needed to be used to stop the madness!!
Violence is necessary to defeat these people, because it is clear they will not stop until they are FORCED to stop. Sitting back and waiting to "take it on the chin" is not a policy or and ideology of success for the west!
Now on to business. . . .
I see your points, and they are valid, as are mine. However, all I see is countering what I have said. I see nothing in terms of your plan to stop these crazy people. Living in a bubble, and putting up walls and isolating ones country doesnt defeat the jihadists either (we learned that the hard way. . . see 9/11). My point is we are fighting people who only respond to violence. They view diplomacy is buying time for their next military strike (ie Iran/al-Qaeda/Hezbollah etc). They have no plans for peace until the globe is subjugated under islam!! My question is when does the madness in the middle east stop??? Is it going to take a nuke from Iran onto Tel Aviv to do so?? I dont know if you know this, but they are very public about attacking Israel, and "destroying an illegitimate state". I am not saying we should start spraying nukes likes insecticide, but I am saying they might be needed to be used to stop the madness!!
Violence is necessary to defeat these people, because it is clear they will not stop until they are FORCED to stop. Sitting back and waiting to "take it on the chin" is not a policy or and ideology of success for the west!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-12-10 12:40:59)
Sorry... but based on that Germs have the biggest army in the world. Which means if you can beat them you must be incredible.ATG wrote:
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
Incase you don't understand that....
Quantity doesn't mean quality.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-12-10 12:42:43)
Your logic is extremely flawed. The situation is not as dire as you make it out to be. Your paranoia has made you accept desperate measures (like invading Iraq and killing civilians without much care) over more rational approaches like improving domestic security. Unfortunately, your line of thinking is very common.Blehm98 wrote:
Rumsfeld did fairly well considering the situation.
however, i believe the current situation is hopeless until a terrorist manages to set off a nuke in a large city, then the world will open its eyes and see the problem. Right now most of the Islamic population won't turn in terrorists even if they're testing explosives in their back yard. Threaten to destroy a city that has obviously been providing terrorists with a safe haven and the so called 'moderates' will begin turning in those terrorists constantly. It is impossible to win a war without civilian casualties, and avoiding civilian casualties does nothing more than prolong a war, or possibly postpone (in the case of the first gulf war)
it will eventually come down to someone setting off a nuke, and i would much prefer it be us than the terrorists who throw the first punch
We must take a step back and think these things through. We cannot continue to wage war for such questionable reasons.
Rumsfeld embodied the blindness and stubbornness of the neocon mindset. Hopefully, neocons are starting to evolve some in their considerations for foreign policy. Surely they must see that "staying the course" isn't working.
lmao, i thought the US had iraqi army's help, wow, pathetic
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
Not for a long time they haven't. After Desert Storm Iraq's military was crippled.ATG wrote:
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.Bubbalo wrote:
Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia? Good job!
In the 2003 invasion Iraq fielded an army of around 375'000. That doesn't come close to being the 4th largest army in the world. The top 5 all have troops numbers over the million mark.
Winning a war against an enemy with obsolete armour, in a country where you already have air dominance, that's really impressive. By the time of the invasion Iraq had nothing even resembling any sort of military infrastructure capable of withstanding an attack by coallition forces.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-12-10 13:07:04)
( admits reluctantly to head scratcher nature of war in Iraq )
I think these type of public offices are very difficult. I'm not the sure power of the posisition would be worth the certainty that a whole bunch of people would hate you forever.
I think it takes a patriot to try to do the job. That doesn't mean I think he farts gold dust and has done nothing wrong.
I think these type of public offices are very difficult. I'm not the sure power of the posisition would be worth the certainty that a whole bunch of people would hate you forever.
I think it takes a patriot to try to do the job. That doesn't mean I think he farts gold dust and has done nothing wrong.
Exactly, he IS human, therefore prone to error. Were there error's in Iraq, yea absolutely! But it is not entirely this administrations fault. You could go back 40 years and see the military doctrine was not being used to fight a counter insurgencey, much less policing a muslim(s) state(s).ATG wrote:
( admits reluctantly to head scratcher nature of war in Iraq )
I think these type of public offices are very difficult. I'm not the sure power of the posisition would be worth the certainty that a whole bunch of people would hate you forever.
I think it takes a patriot to try to do the job. That doesn't mean I think he farts gold dust and has done nothing wrong.
Bottom line, is we went in for revenge, and spite!!! We went in to spite the spineless Europeans and to snub the UN, and went in for revenge for Saddam thumbing his nose up at us for years. Both worked lol! The Europeans still dont like us (which isnt anything new), and we removed Saddam!! Now we have to mend our relations with the Euros(which shouldnt be that hard), and rebuild a muslim state(which has proven to be extremely hard).
However, the sad part of the two is we have no agency that is responsible for nation building in this country. Nation building basically defaults to the military, which isnt fair to them, thats not their job to rebuild a country. Their job is more or less to completely destroy it!! Now with that said, the Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush 2, all have not set up an agency over the years to deal with rebuilding a nation following combat action. Essentially even if a democrat were in charge, we would probably see the same result as we are seeing with Bush 2's inability to get Iraq under total control.
To Rumsfelds credit, he created policies to make our forces lighter, more mobile, and more lethal. I can tell you the approach to Afghanistan by using special forces as opposed to conventional forces will go down as very intelligent military doctrine. The way we disected Iraq and won the ground war(in spring of 03) with absolutely minimal casualties will also go down as smart effective military doctrine. The shock and awe wasnt that great militarily, but it sure scared the shit out of the republican guard!!!!
None the less, Rumsfeld isnt perfect, no one is saying he was, but he wasnt that bad of a Defense Secretary given the dire circumstances he faced.
Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-12-10 17:00:32)
Ah, this was meant to go in the karma box.
Excellent post---------ATG
Excellent post---------ATG
Politics aside, just dug up the thread cause I just saw this video and its absolutely hilarious!!!
ƒ³
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- 2 terms in service as Sec Def, Thanks Rummy.