| Author |
Message |
    
Straw's world
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4146
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | 
|
Carter vs. Ford..What the hell were we thinking? Talk about the minor leagues.
This Compared with Reagan, Clinton and yes we can now add W to the list. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 512
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Back to the original topic...
With all the criticism Rumsfeld has gotten, maybe he was getting a little down on himseslf and needed a friendly boost.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041217/pl_nm/bush_rumsfeld_ dc |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:55 am: |
|
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fifty-two percent of respondents to a new poll think Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign amid recent criticism in Congress over his handling of the war in Iraq.
He's going down. After just a few more bad moves Bush will be unable to keep defending him.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2928
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:28 am: |
|
Dumping Rumsfeld over the soldier Q&A and signing letters? No way will Bush do that. Bush had the opportunity to get someone knew with a new term and did so with the rest of his cabinet but chose not to with Rumsfeld. This sniping won't do it, especially from childish Senators and the media looking for a story. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 518
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:34 am: |
|
I don't think Rumsfeld should step down over this. It's nothing new. It was well known that there were shortages of armor for over a year. This is just some media flap that is getting too much attention. But I do think that he should have resigned when the others did, and still should after this flap settles down. I doubt he will, though, since that would be an admission of errors. Resigning after the first term ended would have been a way to leave, and still not admit that mistakes were made.
He is no longer the right man for the job, if he ever was. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2930
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:02 am: |
|
Rumsfeld was right in Afghanistan, right post-Afghanistan war, right in an historic blitz to Baghdad, and made some misjudgements (in hindsight) post-Baghdad. And he's right in reforming the military.
So now, we should toss him? Not hardly. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 911
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:06 am: |
|
hey -
you or I could have commanded that historic "blitz to Baghdad," considering the enemy chose not to fight.
and to call what's happened afterward "some misjudgements" is understatement of the highest order.
I'd agree that the military needs some reforming, but as long as Rumsfeld's still presiding over billions being poured down the SDI rat hole, it ain't really happening. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2931
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:42 am: |
|
Oh really. You or I could have commanded that? You would have conceived of and pulled off that plan, and not panicked when the sand-storm bogged things down and made supply lines vulnerable, and easily could have re-thought the absence of the 4th ID not coming from Turkey? I can't imagine that.
Your reforming the military comments are unique. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 912
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:14 pm: |
|
ok, maybe some hyperbole, but there were probably a hundred guys at the Pentagon (minimum) who could have led such vastly superior forces into Baghdad with ease.
maybe my comments on military reform seem unique to you because you're not paying attention to the continued debacle that is missile defense. tests continue to fail, but much like they did with WMD evidence, our military and political leaders continue to deny reality. and as long as big, big bucks are going down that hole, any military reform that happens is just going to be nibbling around the edges. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2935
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:25 pm: |
|
I am paying attention to the missile defense tests and the program. I still think it's a worthwhile goal and can be done, like the man in the moon. Are you ready to toss in the towel on nuclear fusion too? How about stopping any research for a cure of any virus?
The reform (if you're paying attention) is a tough nut to crack. Rumsfeld got major heat for canceling The Crusader because some congressman's district was involved. Try closing a base -- that's why they pawn it off on blue-ribbon commissions -- but Rumsfeld is giving it a shot. Sounds like cutting budgets is the only reform you'd like.
Let's try that with education. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 914
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:29 pm: |
|
I'm ready to toss in the towel on technology meant to fight the last (Cold) war. Why spend all this dough on something that isn't going to make us safer, even if they can get it to work? We're being told the new nuclear threat is going to arrive in a shipping container or briefcase, not in a missle. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2937
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:38 pm: |
|
It's entirely different technology, as I understand it. It's a limited defense system, with two operating strategies -- land based systems (for the incoming) and sea-based systems (to get the outgoing in the booster phase). There is no system that can stop an arsenal like Russians have.
And I'm wondering, if it's common knowledge that there's no prayer for this thing, why would Russians oppose us wasting money on it? |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Iran and other crazy countries have long range missiles that threaten American interests (bases, Allies, etc).
I think its a good idea to be able to render their missiles impotent, Nuclear or otherwise.
It sure would make our troops safer in theatre.
Missile defense would sure take a lot of the threat of a Nuclear Iran or N. Korea away.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 917
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:54 pm: |
|
The question is not about rendering nukes impotent. Everyone would be in favor of that. The question is, would the time, effort, and yes, money, be better spent on some other more immediate need.
And the refusal of the Bushies to join the "reality based" world makes the missile defense pursuit even more troubling. They don't bother themselves with inconvenient facts like the fact that the tests have failed. The true scientific pursuit of working technology would mean acknowledging failure and working to make corrections. On the other hand, denial of facts and cheerleading for failed tests looks a lot more like another defense boondoggle that makes contractors rich, even while our soldiers find themselves without all the equipment they need today. |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Forget about Nukes for a second here.
Wouldn't it be great for our troops if SCUDS were basically useless?
I think the time, effort, and money for that would be totally worthwile, why don't you?
So the tests failed, so what? it took Alexander Graham Bell a hundred tries to get his phone to work. It took Edison hundreds of failures to make a lightbulb. The Wright brothers failed over and over. Thats why there are tests. The tests fail, but do better than the last one... improvements are made, and they test again. It will take dozens and dozens failed tests to do this.
Is it expensive? Yes. Could the money be better used elsewhere? Maybe. Will it be worth it in the end? I believe so. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 171
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:25 pm: |
|
How about reviving the NPT? How about the US signing the NPT, so that the treaty has some credibility in the rest of the world? Is the West really interested in banning nuclear weapons?
Ah, the hubris of nuclear hypocrisy!
|
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:43 pm: |
|
"it took Alexander Graham Bell a hundred tries to get his phone to work"
Really, Michael? Maybe he should have switched to Sprint. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 2939
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:39 pm: |
|
must_must -- do you really think the US signing a treaty will induce other countries not to break it? And if they do break it and we get really really mad, what do we do? Go to the UN?
Hey, ya know, I think N. Korea broke an agreement with Clinton AND got food, light water nuclear reactors and then developed nukes nonetheless. You call over there and tell Kim that you're really disappointed in him as a tyrant. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1362
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Missile defense is usually a dumb strategy, kind of like raising the sides of a leaking boat as it sinks deeper into the water.
There are only a few isolated situations where it makes sense (other than as a welfare handout to defense contractors).
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 164
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:16 am: |
|
Maybe in two years or so Cheney will replace Rumsfeld so the Repubs can put their 2008 nominee in the VP slot.
That is if Rumsfeld survives more controversies and if Cheney survives his rumored congestive heart failure.
Or maybe not. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 174
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Rummy and John Milton
Winning
By DIANE CHRISTIAN
"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win."
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld urging the troops not to believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the military to win, asking help to "win the test of wills."
Like Satan in Paradise Lost who said he would melt at the sight of the loving Adam and Eve and leave them in peace had he not promised his constituents to lead their righteous war of revenge, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld framed the challenge to the troops in Iraq as winning for our side. The poet Milton, a veteran of political speeches, remarks about Satan's line "so spake the Fiend, and with necessity,/ The tyrant's plea, excused his devilish deeds.". Milton understood this is always the rationalization: we do it for God and country and goodness and peace and democracy and freedom and Allah and our land and good guy winning. He also kept noting that Satan spoke 'glozing lies'-glossing, flattering, smooth empty words to mask the malice.
"I see that violence and say we must win." Help "win the test of wills" against the insurgents. The insurgents no doubt say the same thing. They see American violence-over 100,000 civilians killed, cities in rubble and without security-and say they must resist the occupying violent force. Who is winning what?
Pork Chop Hill? Fallujah? Hearts and minds? Freedom? Democracy? Our land? Our religion?
The test of wills for Rumsfeld is military will. We will fight.
Winning is a sports figure-competitive, fight team fight. If we import 'winning' to war the rationalization of violence goes from exerting energy and living to fight another day to rationalizing death. Enemy violence becomes bad violence because they are evil and our violence becomes righteous violence because we are good. Violence is the necessary tool-as torture can be or the death of 100,000 civilians. Not a bad thing. The good end justifies the bad means. 'You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.' 'Freedom is messy,' as Rumsfeld flippantly said about pillaging and looting Baghdad. Rumsfeld slings cliches like guided missiles taking out objections. He's excellent at guerilla comments.
Lately people have taken exception to his slingers. 'You go to war with the army you have not the army you want' was called arrogant and insensitive. Signing death letters with a machine was called callous and contrasted with the commander-in-chief's personalized signatures. The President then defended his warrior chief as a kind fellow and the warrior chief himself talked about his deep compassion and feeling.. The current cliches are feeling cliches.
The winning the Secretary of Defense is good at is word winning. We have lost the war of hearts and minds. We are losing the war of violence, that contagious poison we unleashed and can't control.
During the Vietnam War many said we should just declare we won and leave-cynically understanding that we cannot bear to lose. Though we absolutely did lose despite incurring more devastation than we can measure.
Iraq invasion was presented as a preemptive but defensive war against weapons of mass destruction. Then it was defended as bringing freedom and democracy to an oppressed people. Now it is pursued as a war against insurgent anti-democratic violence. Whether these are all glozing lies or delusions or public relations packaging Milton would say God alone knows. In Milton's view only God can pierce hypocrisy because humans and even angels are fooled by the pretense of piety.
The great thing about the idea of God is that it asserts that human judgment is imperfect. We should understand we cannot read hearts and minds. We should read actions. Which speak louder than words. Destruction is not liberation. Death is not freedom. Evil is not good. No matter the excuse or repackaging.
Winning can be glozing.
Diane Christian is SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor at University at Buffalo and author of the new book Blood Sacrifice. She can be reached at: engdc@acsu.buffalo.edu
|
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7091
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:54 am: |
|
To call Rummy uncaring is wrong. He cares. He has visited Walter Reed enough to know the human cost involved in the war.
However, it still comes down to the fact we don't have enough troops to do the job. We should have been able to prevent insurgents from escaping from Fallujah when we sent the terriers (Marines) to flush out the rats (insurgents). We weren't able to do this. Also, we don't have enough troops to make sure that the insurgents don't establish themselves in places like Mosul.
Force transformation has a nice ring to it. However, a little over ten years ago the correct force was the armor heavy one we used to crush Saddam's forces, many of whom fought and were annihaleted, in 100 hours. Ten years from now with what is going on in Russia these days we may well be planning for the Russkies coming through the Fulda Gap once again. |
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:13 am: |
|
Which way I flie is Hell; my self am Hell;
And in the lowest deep a lower deep
Still threatning to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heavn'n.
O then at last relent: is there no place
Left for Repentance, none for Pardon left?
None left but by submission; and that word
DISDAIN forbids me, and my dread of shame
Among the Spirits beneath, whom I seduc'd
With other promises and other vaunts
Then to submit, boasting I could subdue
Th' Omnipotent. Ay me, they little know
How dearly I abide that boast so vaine,
Under what torments inwardly I groane;
While they adore me on the Throne of Hell,
With Diadem and Scepter high advanc'd
The lower still I fall, onely Supream
In miserie; such joy Ambition findes.
You mean like that? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1842
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:42 pm: |
|
 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page