SilverScoober02

Bout damn time!

What do you guys think?

bassplayrr

iTrader: (9)

Today is like an early Christmas.

Rummy steps down.

Dems take control of House.

Dems likely take control of Sentate, pending two recounts.

South Dakota choses not to accept a sweeping ban on abortion.

Missouri choses to protect stem cell research.

Arizona rejects gay marriage ban.

Michigan does away with affirmative action.

Change like this has been needed for far too long.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I've wanted Rumsfeld to step down long ago...

spedmunki

wow.....if only we had a presidential electipon this year.....no more bush...

VIBEELEVEN

iTrader: (2)

Should have happened last week.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

I never cared for Rumsfeld, but not so much due to his execution of the war or in general administration of the Defense Department. Like anything, there were policies I didn't agree with and those that I did.

His greatest offense, at least to me, was that he hid behind that fact that he was appointed and not elected, and strongly refused to recognize the American constituency as his true boss.

For instance, no one yet knows if our strategy in the middle east was the most appropriate or not. In 5-10-20 years, we may realize that as ugly as it has sometimes been, it was the best possible approach. No matter who creates and executes the strategy, some of that strategy will work and some will fail and need to be fixed. Maybe the strategy to-date, which the President, Rumsfeld, and the strategic and field generals have applied has actually been most appropriate. Who knows?

However, his perspective was that the American people aren't capable of knowing what the best strategy is, and so, when their opinion ebbs and flows with whatever current event the media has focused on, their opinion isn't to be considered. Further, he has never lifted a finger to clarify the 'why's' behind current events; I'm assuming because he felt that to do so would be airing sensitive information.

What I mean is, I've never doubted that Bush' and Rumsfeld's motivation behind invading Iraq and continuing the fight was because they genuinely felt that it was in the nation's best interest. I can even understand the, in my opinion, unintentional ruse of WMD's. I think that they believed and still do that defeating the highly splintered extremist Muslim factions, no matter what the catalyst was that they utilized to justify it, was a foregone conclusion; it wasn't a question of why or where but when.

Unfortunately, even if the President and the Secretary of Defense know in their hearts of hearts that what they are doing is critical to the security of the US...and the world; but they don't clearly (without discussing anything sensitive) explain why; both initially and every step of the way, then they are never going to gain or maintain approval from their boss; the citizens of the United States.



Put yourself in their (Bush and Rumsfeld) position for a moment. Suppose that you have volumes of information (intelligence, indicators, and current general global situation) that convinces you that, if we continue our laisez faire, nationalistic approach to foreign affairs, our way of life as we know it will be extinguished very quickly. You're convinced that radical Muslims are going to greatly increase the scale and frequency of terror attacks across the world, with an even greater emphasis on terroristics operations on American soil; and that diplomacy isn't an option whatsoever.

Now, for arguments sake, let's say that there has yet to be a 9/11, though small scale terrorism has increased on American soil as well as towards American targets abroad (I think this is actually a pretty accurate description of the 1990's.) Let's also say that there were never any indicators of WMDs on Iraqi soil (which, though I know that it's more or less been proven that there weren't any, I still believe that there were and Saddam was savvy enough to move them to any of the various surrounding countries - probably Syria...or Iran. I do kind of doubt Iran, though.)

Now, what do you do? It's so easy to arm chair QB everything that the Bush/Rumsfeld war machine has done...after the fact. With the information we have now, what would you do?

Personally, I can't say that I would do it much differently than they have. I don't believe that I really have enough information to know the hows or whys behind the campaign to resolve the mid-east issue. So I'm saying, assuming that Bush/Rumsfeld are(were) prosecuting the war for all of the right reasons, I wouldn't do it any different -except- that I would offer much more disclosure. That and I would fire anyone and everyone who are even remotely associated with Halliburton/Kelley, Brown, and Root.

GT35 STI

iTrader: (6)

QFT!!!!

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

I see your point Pat, but I still can't bring myself to say "well, they MEANT well by what they did..."

Frankly, I think that we need to find the fastest possible way to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan (not just cold turkey; I mean leave the place in a decently stable state of affairs so that we can stop killing young Americans for that stability) and stop sending our military to every corner of the globe to "spread democracy." Democracy can be spread by the sword about as effectively as religion is. There can be no American success in Iraq- if it is not an Iraqi success, it can never be permanent.

We need to stop trying to discipline the world and start leading. We should use our military as a war machine, not neighborhood cop. The CIA, FBI, and similar institutions are more vital to our national security at this point than the military is, anyway.

If our goal as a nation is to make the world a better place, we need to more carefully examine the specifics of what that means, and how to go about it. We will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If we want un- and under-developed nations to embrace democratic ideals and government systems, we need to give them ideals and systems they will want to emulate, rather than punishments and witholdings for not doing what we say is appropriate.

Cliff notes: we should stop throwing stones from our glass house.

gpatmac

iTrader: (3)

You're most likely right. My only point is do we know enough right now to say whether the strategic policy was bumbling at best or negligent at worst? I wouldn't be surprised, I just don't feel like I can make that judgement right now.See, there's the trouble. Decently stable state and fastest possible are mutually exclusive. Fastest possible could equate to years.Again, absolutely right. I still have never gotten an answer as to "why Iraq and not [insert 3rd world hotspot here]"

Hopefully the answer is not "to secure our interests." However, I wonder what my life would be like if the oil-producing countries were finally able to confederate somehow and one day decided to just shut us off. We'd be left to rely on TX, AK, Venezuala, and alternative fuels only. I wonder how hard I'd be complaining about policing the world then.

GT35 STI

iTrader: (6)

what pisses me off is how every other word outa bush's mouth is about how we gotta stop terrorist yet a bunch of red necks with their rifles walking around the hills of afghanney land would be a better search for terrorist then what we have now.... I'm all for going after terrorist, hell i'm all for going after countries where there are genocides like darfur, but what we are doing in Iraq is just wrong IMO and it's at the expense of the men and woman who volunteered to fight for our country

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Time will tell, but honestly, in the end I think this goes down as another Vietnam and Afghanistan (80's Russia war, not our current one. I think that one's a lot more justified and mroe importantly, being fought better).

I disagree. How much of the current violence in Iraq is due to American presence, and how much is true civil war power struggle? I think if we determine that killing Americans is the reason for the fighting more than influencing the new government, we need to GTFO.

"Shutting off" our oil would be suicide. They know what that would do to our economy, and therefore our way of life, and they would leave us no choice but to respond with the full might of our military. We would pretty much destroy the world's oil production capacity for the better part of a decade or two in that fighting and OPEC knows it. It's not going to happen. We'd be a cornered animal, and we have pretty big teeth and sharp claws compared to all of the oil-rich nations.

Kevin M

iTrader: (12)

Don't confuse ineffective leadership for ineffective tactics. US Special Forces and Rangers are more than capable of meeting the tactical demands of the Afghanistan mission.

More to the point, killing militant Taliban members is less important than getting the regular people in that region on our side.

GT35 STI

iTrader: (6)

Oh i'm not saying it's the Army/Special Forces/Rangers who aren't doing their job, my friend is out there and I know damn well he is doing his job. I was directing it at the leadership not the troops, I support the troops 100% through and through

lethalpsi

These are boring, really.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...ew.cgi/30/6222
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090906A.shtml

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

all i have to say is..