Originally posted by sasquatch672My, SQ, what an unbiased evaluation of the situation.
You've all read the stories. (If you haven't, pound sand.) So there's an argument that the criticism of the military's civilian leadership by general officers, active or retired, threatens a pillar of our republic - "civilian" control of the military. Rumsfeld's been criticized for being officious, dismissive - lots of personal attacks, but he's also ...[text shortened]... 't - it would be tantamount to admitting his entire presidency was a failure.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Rumsfeld probably took the actions he believed to be right at the time. Just because things haven't gone as planned doesn't necessarily mean he should resign.
You've all read the stories. (If you haven't, pound sand.) So there's an argument that the criticism of the military's civilian leadership by general officers, active or retired, threatens a pillar of our republic - "civilian" control of the military. Rumsfeld's been criticized for being officious, dismissive - lots of personal attacks, but he's also ...[text shortened]... 't - it would be tantamount to admitting his entire presidency was a failure.
His resignation or sacking would achieve very little right now. This administration was always going be judged on its response to 9/11.
Bush and Rummy wanted the war in Iraq, they should be judged on it at the end of the term in office.
Which is why Hilary Clinton will be your next president.
Originally posted by invigorateHillary supported, and still supports, the war in Iraq.
Rumsfeld probably took the actions he believed to be right at the time. Just because things haven't gone as planned doesn't necessarily mean he should resign.
His resignation or sacking would achieve very little right now. This administration was always going be judged on its response to 9/11.
Bush and Rummy wanted the war in Iraq, they should be ju ...[text shortened]... at the end of the term in office.
Which is why Hilary Clinton will be your next president.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Rumsfeld, like your neo-con hero Barnet, thought that the Iraqi people couldn't wait to be invaded so they could start having their individual liberties protected. Therefore, he figured we didn't need a lot of troops; they'd only be tripping over the flowers the hordes of grateful Iraqis would be throwing in front of US soldiers anyway. Just enough to do the little bit of fighting that would be required on the ground as the aerial bombardment was supposed to "Shock and Awe" them cowardly A-rabs into submission. Then enough troops to build up a bunch of permanent military installations, the swearing in of an appropriately puppet government and VOILA! the crude would start flowing and the boys could move on to Syria.
You've all read the stories. (If you haven't, pound sand.) So there's an argument that the criticism of the military's civilian leadership by general officers, active or retired, threatens a pillar of our republic - "civilian" control of the military. Rumsfeld's been criticized for being officious, dismissive - lots of personal attacks, but he's also ...[text shortened]... 't - it would be tantamount to admitting his entire presidency was a failure.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Sure it's good enough for everybody else. But the idea of a limited government is incompatible with the idea of forcing other people in other countries to accept the necessity of a limited government! Can you figure out why? Answer this question and you're on the way; why did the Framers feel that a limited government was necessary? Couldn't a nice, all-powerful one force everybody to respect each other's liberties?
Ok - you've spent a great deal of time here singing the praises of the Founding Fathers for their wisdom in creating this form of government we've got here. If it's good enough for us, why not everybody else? (Believe me - I'm cured of any "imperialist" impulses you might attribute to me. Explain to me, with a maximum of insults, please, why, if our id I read today? "Bush has not matched the ends to the means." Very prescient, that.
Originally posted by no1marauderdid they really want the crude to flow though, or is the higher prices brought about by a disrupted supply a better way to make money?
Rumsfeld, like your neo-con hero Barnet, thought that the Iraqi people couldn't wait to be invaded so they could start having their individual liberties protected. Therefore, he figured we didn't need a lot of troops; they'd only be tripping over the flowers the hordes of grateful Iraqis would be throwing in front of US soldiers anyway. Just enough to do ...[text shortened]... et government and VOILA! the crude would start flowing and the boys could move on to Syria.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDisrupt the supply too much and people start buying electric cars or something. The trick is to restrict it just enough to keep the price at the maximum amount that people will willingly pay. Push it too high and they find ways to do without.
did they really want the crude to flow though, or is the higher prices brought about by a disrupted supply a better way to make money?
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672hahahahaha!
Ok - you've spent a great deal of time here singing the praises of the Founding Fathers for their wisdom in creating this form of government we've got here. If it's good enough for us, why not everybody else? (Believe me - I'm cured of any "imperialist" impulses you might attribute to me. Explain to me, with a maximum of insults, please, why, if our id I read today? "Bush has not matched the ends to the means." Very prescient, that.
your government does not cause large scale civil unrest !!!!
hahahaha !!!!!
😀
p.s. i would die laughing ... but it is not really very funny ...
what i am trying to say is that your basic premise, that your style of government is ideal, is flawed ...
Originally posted by sasquatch672i put it something like this: troops were committed to this war effort with the casualness and swagger that is the special province of those whose families have never been the victims of invasion by a foreign military, or to count the consequences of their decisions. Pretty strong words.
... One general put it something like this: troops were committed to this war effort with the casualness and swagger that is the special province of those who have never been called upon to fight themselves, or to count the consequences of their decisions. Pretty strong words....
true the soldiers lives are important, they were victims ... but they were essentially the hired henchmen ... if you want to find the real victims of these wars then look overseas.
Originally posted by sasquatch672So far in every war, there has been a few generals that critisize how the war was done, This is nothing new, well maybe it is for you.
You've all read the stories. (If you haven't, pound sand.) So there's an argument that the criticism of the military's civilian leadership by general officers, active or retired, threatens a pillar of our republic - "civilian" control of the military. Rumsfeld's been criticized for being officious, dismissive - lots of personal attacks, but he's also ...[text shortened]... 't - it would be tantamount to admitting his entire presidency was a failure.