Just in....Rumsfeld finally stepping down..

TroyD

univera wrote:

Troy, I didn't say the war was entirely about money. I said it was certainly one factor that couldn't possibly have been overlooked. As much spinning and analyzing that goes down in any White House, there's no way that didn't get mentioned and considered. If you are saying you believe we went to Iraq to fight terrorists, I respectfully disagree. I have yet to see one thing that showed there was any huge numbers of terrorists in Iraq pre-war. There were some camps, but nothing widescale like A-stan.

Are we there now to fight terrorists? For certain. They have overrun the joint and new ones are joining up everyday. Many of the people we attempted to save from Hussein are likely now the terrorists themselves. I'm in no way implying that we turned them into that. Those people have such a vacummn of anything stable that it doesn't take much to push them one way or the other. Anger at the U.S. combined with the rest of the nut jobs already there is all it takes.

Was the war conceived to fatten up Haliburton? Maybe not, but they definitely have benefitted tremendously. Again, its the chicken and egg discussion. Maybe they weren't initially the reason to go, but it seems in many ways they have unfairly benefitted without proper competion. Yes, I know they do things the best and have the experience. However; no bid contracts NEVER do anything other than lead to suspicion, so you can't fault anyone for being dubious. It's not that far fetched even if I don't personally buy into it 100%. It would be impossible or ignorant to totally overlook and dismiss long standing connections between the Bush family and Cheney. Again, its all part of the big picture with a bunch of "good" reasons to go to war.

I don't honestly believe that boosting the economy was a valid reason to boost the economy. Personally, I can't connect the dots. It wasn't a mass mobilization requiring a show of our industrial might. So, again, I don't think it was a consideration.

I also never said we went to Iraq to fight terrorists. I said preemption. Again, it's not a stretch after Afghanistan that Iraq wasn't a good place to go for AQ. Theres much more to it, but....

Haliburton fattened itself up during the 90's. It positioned itself as it did following the drawdown of the 90's (which actually started rolling under Bush Sr.) because we found it cheaper to contract out. No bid contracts in contingencies have been around for a LONG time and Haliburton took full advantage in the 90's. True. Look it up. Now, did Cheney benefit during the 90's? You betcha. All legal. All ethical.

Again, while you bring up points that would appear to have traction but the really don't hold up to scrutiny like people would like to believe.

BDT

TroyD

marker wrote:

OK, so tell me, what reasons did I give that he had to go?

but if Rummy was doing such a great job and the war was going so well, we wouldn't be having this conversation on this thread

The implication is that Rumsfeld was doing an awful job. I don't think that's true. I may disagree with some of his policies but that doesn't mean he was doing an awful job. I think he believes he was doing what was right....and in that context, I think he was successful.

BDT

TroyD

marker wrote:

So how did you in your mind interpret that it was ever said on this thread that anything was illegal? Or that it hadn't been going on for more than just 4 years? Go ahead, look for yourself and see if it ever was, by me anyway. Maybe this is your idea of an "ideological" debate, to invent things that were never even said?

You asked who was making money off of the war. I pointed out how Halli. had been enjoying all time record breaking profits. Now, just do a search from public disclosures (through reputable sources at that, and not just "moveon.org") as to just how many billions of $$$ from the Iraq war has gone directly to them. Including, among other things, vast profits from the subsidizing of gas by US taxpayers for citizens in one of the most oil rich countries in the world.

Now, you tell me, do you really and truly believe that Halli. isn't profiting immensely off of this war? While they are not the only ones, but they are getting theirs, and then some.

Now if you own a lot of their stock, then this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing though. Do you own any?

Your implication, as I read it, was the tired argument that we went to war to line the pockets of Cheney Bush et al and that there was something illicit, unethical or illegal. If that is not your contention, I apologize.

No, I KNOW that Haliburton is making a fortune. I also know that's not by accident. The are doing a LOT of things that used to be done by GI's and the gov't a LOT more expensively. Again, not by accident. They have been positioning themselves for this for many years.

Do I own Haliburton stock? Let's say I do. I'm also active duty military. Personally, I'd rather take the bite on the stock than go back again to the desert. To think that people of my political philosophy break it all down to dollars and cents is laughable.

BDT

Polkersince85

I ,myself, made probably over $500,000.00 off the Reagan/Bush 1 , "War Machine". All legit and hard work. The defense industry contributes a large amount of stimulus for our economy. Don't knock it.

warren

Location: North Victoria Gardens, RC-Quakes Hmmm, havent heard of that state yet. Who is the Witch?

George Grand

This country has been ripped apart twice in my time. Both times by what APPEARS to be the politicos and the military-industrial machine. A lot of nice kids got killed in Vietnam, and a lot of nice kids are getting killed in Iraq. I'm not seeing the productivity in the sacrifice. Pre-emption is a long shot, our own gov't think tank guys said that Saddam rejected Al-Qaeda wholly and they weren't going to be a problem there.

I don't want to hear that our country is at war with terrorism. Our MILITARY is at war with terrorism. The Prez was recently asked, "If our COUNTRY is at war, why hasn't our COUNTRY had to make sacrifices for the war effort?" The feeble answer was, "Americans HAVE had to sacrifice. They've had to stand on long lines at airports." That was the extent of the answer and the sacrifice. You want me to prove my points? Well, I can't. But hell, John Kennedy was shot down like a dog, live in front of maybe a couple thousand people, and then a shitload of money was spent over a long period of time trying to figure out just what the hell DID happen down there in Dallas, and we STILL don't know. So I'm comfortable with the fact that I can't PROVE some of the things that I suggest could be true.

This **** has weakened and polarized our country, not strengthened and unified it. It has bankrupted this country. We have money to spend at $80k a pop for garbage trucks for Iraq, but we can't provide decent health care to all our citizens. We had the ENTIRE **** PLANET on our side on 12 Sep 01, but now we have to buy our friends because of the way we've thrown our weight around. I attended a briefing the other day where some clown kept on bandying about the term "hyper-power". That America is no longer a super-power, we are the worlds only HYPER-POWER. He was getting a lot of mileage out of that term and it was pissing me off, so I finally raised my hand and asked, "Should a HYPER-POWER have to grind down its entire active duty army to the point of exhaustion, and do the same to the Marines and reserve forces in order to quell a chickenshit insurgency?" I endeared myself to nobody with that question, but I'm close enough to retirement to not give a damn. We're not a hyper-power. We just have a fair amount of nukes and better means of delivering them than anybody else. A large part of the world's population now considers US the greatest threat to world peace. I firmly believe that a few more years of this **** behavior and the only thing that's going to stop the whole freakin' world from banding together and coming at us is those nukes, and that is damn disgusting. We squandered everything over this ****, and there's nobody but this present admin to hang it on.

And Clinton got impeached over a couple of blow jobs.

warren

Amen George, Amen

DarqueKnight

TroyD wrote:

I think he [Rumsfeld] believes he was doing what was right....and in that context, I think he was successful.

The same could be said for Hitler...not that I am equating Rumsfeld with Hitler.

Holydoc

George Grand wrote:

And Clinton got impeached over a couple of blow jobs.

I thought Clinton got impeached for lying under oath during a civil rights litigation, obstruction of justice, concealment of evidence, and for persuasion of a court witness to commit perjury.

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-gov/e-politicalarchive-Clintonimpeach.htm

The blow jobs were just a benefit of his ill-advised behaviour and misuse of his position of Commander-in-Chief.

mrbigbluelight

TroyD wrote:

And you know this how? Last time I checked, the buck stopped on the CinC's desk.

Not being coy, but I'd have to look up those sources and post them.
The buck does stop on the CINC's desk (or at least it did for Harry Truman).

TroyD wrote:

Do you agree with everything, to the letter your boss makes you do? Have you ever thought that you could do with more resources only for the boss to say no? Does that mean he didn't listen?

No, actually I disagree with almost EVERYTHING my boss does. I'm not sure if it is because he's an incompetent buffoon, or a dishonest manager/thief.
When asked to do something stupid, I ask the question "Why ?". Although the threat of "insubordination" has been leveled at me numerous times, I
correctly point out that Patton DEMANDED of his subordiates that they question his thinking.
I don't ask my boss for resources of any sort anymore, haven't for years.
I need something, I buy it myself.
Almost sounds like what the troops on the ground in Iraq are doing, ie, fashioning their own armor Humvee plating, doesn't it ?

TROYD wrote:

Young people have always been the tools that old men make war with. Always has been, always will be. Truth be told, there is a LOT of truth to that statement. To which, a LOT of the truth in that statement is due to the actions of previous administrations.

I agree, that is the way wars are fought.
And that the previous administrations did not have the statesmanship to prevent this situation is regrettable.
This can't be laid solely at W's feet, but where was the political savy that would have lessened the hardship for our country and our troops ?
As George Grand mentioned, at one time we had the entire world on our side, ready to provide support. It took quite a bit of incompetence for us to lose that support, QUITE a bit.
George's insistence that WE were going to rebuild Iraq by ourselves (using
basically Haliburton) was almost criminal. Why would he do that ? Of course, France et all subsequently declined our invitations to join the party.
"Not going to share the spoils ? We're not coming."
That's what countries do, it shouldn't have been a suprise to George Bush.

TroyD wrote:

Well, I would rather have someone who is confident and steadfast in thier convictions rather than someone who rules by public opinion. I'd also say that military service is irrelevant, to be honest. Historically, we've had good presidents and bad, military service doesn't seem to be the crucial thing.

But that is EXACTLY why Rumsfeld wasn't replaced until after the election.
Out of George Bush's mouth at the press conference yesterday morning:
When asked about the timing of the "resignation", Bush said (paraphrased):
"Well, with an election coming up, I didn't want to make a move that might be seen as political".

So: in other words: Rumsfeld's "resignation" was the right thing to do, but
people might think it was a political move, so he didn't do it right away.
In other words: a POLITICAL move.

You're correct, that military sevice isn't crucial to be a good president. While Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman had military backgrounds (and history consideres them good), FDR had no military background and is considered great.

My point or rather feelings about the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney bunch is that I believe they would be the absolute last people on the planet earth that I'd want watching my back in a battle. The last.
They are flag-waving patriots when it profits them.
Bush's "performance" during his National Guard days says a lot about him and the system.

univera

Touche, George. My biggest problem with this war, outside the fact of all our people dying for a country that isn't sure its willing to sacrifice for freedom or that they want it at all, is that it has totally polarized our country. Until recently, most Republicans die hardly supported the effort strictly because they supported their head man and party. I can tell you right now that if a Democrat started some war that I didn't believe in, I'd say it was wrong and disagree.

I was never a Bush fan, but after 9/11, I was more on his wagon than ever. He lost all credibility with me after ramming this war into place. I'm not going to repeat the obvious, but it helps to have the world on your side, even the pain in the **** French. We are now more hated than at any time in our history and that is truly sad.

One other thought I must disagree with is the idea that someone respects an elected leader for remaining steadfast in their belief as oppossed to being a "weather vane." I am all for sticking to one's guns, but if you are wrong or need to adjust your thinking when reality doesn't match the facts, man up and admit you made a mistake. Correct your course of thinking based on the new facts, not the old ones you based your initial thinking upon.

Just because Rumsfeld thought he was doing the right thing does not make him a success. Pigheadedness and refusal to listen to others with similar knowledge and expertise does not make one a success. Success is based on reality, and the reality is that the majority of this country doesn't feel Iraq is succesful at this point. As much disdain as I have for this administration, I certainly want to see us be successful and make all these deaths and mamed bodies worth something. I am sure George would agree...as would most people of all sides of the fence.

Troy, what is your military background? Just curious.

exalted512

If our war effort was based on public opinion, I'd move to France. Who the hell cares if "the majority of this country doesn't feel Iraq is succesful at this point." The majority of this country doesnt have enough knowledge to form an opinion.

More than 2/3 of americans dont know that Condoleezza Rice is the current secretary of state.
-Cody

univera

exalted512 wrote:

If our war effort was based on public opinion, I'd move to France. Who the hell cares if "the majority of this country doesn't feel Iraq is succesful at this point." The majority of this country doesnt have enough knowledge to form an opinion.

More than 2/3 of americans dont know that Condoleezza Rice is the current secretary of state.
-Cody

That's right, I forgot. Only the brilliant people we elect are knowledgeable enough to take us to war. Let me rephrase it the way I intended it to read: the majority of the people in this country are "DISSATISFIED" with the Iraq situation. That encompasses many things related to Iraq. I think there are plenty of people well informed enough to be dissatisfied or to decide whether or not we have been successful. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see things aren't ideal and that "miscalculations" have occurred. So just because Rumsfeld thinks he is did things right, obviously, things didn't go as planned. He was quoted at one point as saying we might have things stable in 6 months from the outset. Realize, exalted one, that I am not advocating getting out. I'm just saying **** isn't real good right now, which is stating the obvious. I'm not on a rip campaign. I just don't see why some can't admit that their man failed.

And, keep in mind, public opinion is important. The President and everyone else serves because of the people. Being elected should never amount to free reign without repercussions.

George Grand

And a large portion of this country still thinks Saddam had something to do with 9-11 Exalted. That was taken to the bank a couple times, but it doesn't appear to be getting deposited again anytime soon.

Perhaps if she was effective as a secretary of state.......

exalted512

univera wrote:

That's right, I forgot. Only the brilliant people we elect are knowledgeable enough to take us to war.

Just like the dumb ones in the army fight the war;)
-Cody

bikezappa

The plan (Rummys Plan) to bring democracy to Iraq has failed. We didn't have enough troops to do the job. The Iraq's raided and looted everything of value in the early stages of the war, doctors, teachers and the smart people were killed regularly while we did nothing but gaurd the oil wells. Rummys plan sucked and failed and we are in a bucket of **** now.

What your gonna do Daddy?

DarqueKnight

univera wrote:

He [Rumsfeld] was quoted at one point as saying we might have things stable in 6 months from the outset.

You really can't blame him [Rumsfeld] for being overly optimistic. After all, CIA director George Tenet had promised a quick "slam dunk" victory. Who wouldn't be enthusiastic about a slam dunk?

bikezappa

I thinik you go with the advice of the generals that fight the war.

I thought that many generals wanted many more troops from the get go?

univera

exalted512 wrote:

Just like the dumb ones in the army fight the war;)
-Cody

I hear you on that, and I won't try to defend that comment as it was definitely a big foot in the mouth.

However; I think the underlying message Kerry was likely trying to convey was that if you don't study and work hard, your options are limited, and military service might be your only option for a decent job and real benefits. One could further surmise that Kerry was making the connection that military service may become your only good option and then you will get stuck in a war your country isn't fully behind. That your decision to serve in the military as one of limited options may end up in betrayal and getting bogged down in a war many don't want to fight. Obviously, Kerry's opinion is that the war is an illegitimate one.

Furthermore, Vietnam was a war the public wasn't fully behind and there is no denying who did the country's bidding in that one. If you weren't in college, you were drafted and sent out. Being educated has its advantages.

That's my take on his comments, and I'm not looking for Kerry to run again. Nor am I a Kerry defender. I just believe that was what he meant. I don't think he was in any way trying to say the military was made up of dumb people.

Look at the numbers and I'll bet there are LOTS of high school only grad or maybe not grads at all in the ranks. I know that when I was in high school, the only kids I recall looking at the military were ones not going to college. And that was due to not having the skills for college. I'm not a military guy, but I do know those without college diplomas cannot advance in rank like those who have B.S.'s. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

bikezappa

"It never hurts to increase your options" said my wife. Then she divorced me. WTF.

TroyD

I'm not going to repeat the obvious, but it helps to have the world on your side, even the pain in the **** French. We are now more hated than at any time in our history and that is truly sad

The only reason that most countries EVER pretended to like us is because they either wanted our money or protection.

One other thought I must disagree with is the idea that someone respects an elected leader for remaining steadfast in their belief as oppossed to being a "weather vane." I am all for sticking to one's guns, but if you are wrong or need to adjust your thinking when reality doesn't match the facts, man up and admit you made a mistake

I agree with this in principle but in this case because a majority of people think Bush is 'wrong' does that make it an absolute? This cuts to the heart of my whole point: Just because I don't agree with you, that doesn't mean that you are empirically wrong. We just disagree. Now, in regards to Iraq specifically, there are also positive signs. The terrorists do not 'control' any vast sort of territory. The government IS standing up (and has proven that they aren't schilling for the US). Infrastructure is better now than it probably ever has been. Iraqi military/police etc are standing up, maybe not as fast as we would hope but it IS happening. If you think that what you see on the network news is the absolute reality, well, I'd say that's not true. Now, am I saying that things aren't bad or challenging? No, but I'm saying that the terrorists are succeeding the way that they would hope, either.

I just don't see why some can't admit that their man failed.

The same reasons that Clinton wouldn't admit he had his **** in the payroll. Part hubris. Part political.

Being elected should never amount to free reign without repercussions.

I agree. I also agree that if you rule by public opinon, that's an even worse option.

However; I think the underlying message Kerry was likely trying to convey was that if you don't study and work hard, your options are limited, and military service might be your only option for a decent job and real benefits

Taken at face value, that's not just an insult to the military folks but it's an insult in that he doesn't believe that people are able to make thier own way in life.

That your decision to serve in the military as one of limited options may end up in betrayal and getting bogged down in a war many don't want to fight.

It might also mean you end up getting shot at passing out food to Somalians or Rawandans. A bullet in the **** is a bullet in the ****. Who sent you and why, at that point is irrelevant. I'd venture a guess that those two escapades, for example, in the end were pointless.

Look at the numbers and I'll bet there are LOTS of high school only grad or maybe not grads at all in the ranks. I know that when I was in high school, the only kids I recall looking at the military were ones not going to college. And that was due to not having the skills for college. I'm not a military guy, but I do know those without college diplomas cannot advance in rank like those who have B.S.'s. Please correct me if I'm wrong

Because I consider us friends, I'm going to chalk this up to just not knowing what you are talking about. However, I am going to say that you couldn't be more wrong.

From personal experience, I've got 4 years of higher education. I joined because I wanted out of where I was. I've STAYED because, 1) the people I serve with (who are not all a bunch of cretins) 2) I enjoy what I do 3) Corny, but I do feel like I'm a part of something that is bigger than myself and that we DO good things for others.

BDT

DarqueKnight

univera wrote:

That's right, I forgot. Only the brilliant people we elect are knowledgeable enough to take us to war.

"Politics is the art of the possible, which is why only second rate minds go into it. True genius likes to challenge the impossible." -Albert Einstein

George Grand

The military is filled with college graduates. The Air Force basically won't accept you without a high school diploma, and to come in as an officer you need the college degree. I don't know much about the Marines or the Navy, but I know that the Army has relaxed a lot of its requirements just to fill the ranks of the enlisted. They will waive the high school diploma requirement, and overlook a lot of criminal activity that used to be a deal breaker, just to keep the cannon fodder coming. What really is unjust is how many poor guys are suffering with head disorders from previous tours in Iraq that are basically given a band-aid and sent back to their units. These guys probably shouldn't be near weapons or conflict of any type, but that's right where they are.

brettw22

When I saw that speech by Kerry, never for one second did I think that he was aiming that shot at the troops. What was even more amazing was that McCain was one of the first one's jumping on that comment. As I understood his apology, it was if it seemed that it came out that way, but he wasn't making any apology for his pinning much of this on his intended target, bush.

Those that got all wadded up about that are just looking to be pissy imo.......

shack

Well said Troy.

I find it very interesting to see the view from people that have "been there and done that". Troy and George, both of whom are military men, have differing viewpoints. I would guess both have friends who have given their lives in military service. My sister's husband spent a tour in Iraq and my neice's husband spent 2 tours there. Their perspectives are somewhat different than even Troy's or George's.

My point is this. I have first hand opinions from 4 military men about this war, three of which I know have served in the middle east during this time (sorry George - don't know if you've been there). If they all see things differently from having been in the middle of it....how can anyone say anything is empiricaly one way or the other. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it so. Opinions are just that. Some count more than others when it comes to things like the war. No one has any proof that any action would have resulted in a more desirable outcome. We don't even know what would have happened if we had not invaded Iraq. It's total speculation.

So....The American people have voiced their displeasure at the polls. The war will continue.

bikezappa

Shack

You are 100% correct it is all speculation.

However there are some facts that are less than speculation.

How many people have died?
How much the war has cost the US?
How many people are wounded for life?
How many people have lost there homes and jobs?

univera

Troy/George, then I stand corrrected. I wasn't implying whatsoever there weren't college graduates. There are obviously lots of them.

I believe what I was referring to must have been college graduates coming in at a higher rank as George mentioned. Are you saying that all members of the military can rise as high as the rest, regardless of rank? I thought in the past I was told enlisted men couldn't rise but so far.

And, let me be clear. I'm not saying in any way the military is made up of uneducated people. Not one single bit. College isn't everything. I'm not really using my degree for anything. I'm just saying that I believe there are a lot of people who don't have 4 year degrees and who are doing a lot of the grunt work and front line fighting. And, since there are programs that help fund degrees for those who couldn't otherwise afford it, there are likely even more college graduates in the service as a result.

As I mentioned, when I was in high school, none of my friends or associates were looking at the military. Everyone made fun of the recruiters and ran from them. The guys that were talking to them were guys you just knew weren't going on to college, either due to income or not being go-getters in the classroom. Most of them came from lower income homes (which in no way makes them dumb) and many tended to be African American. Quite frankly, a lot of the white guys that looked at military service were the guys that had muscle cars and liked to tinker. They were somewhat already in that mentality, and I'm not making fun of that. They were just a different group of kids. That's what I'm basing my comments upon and I asked to be corrected if was wrong.

Shack, I too believe that opinion of the majority isn't everything. Nor do I believe it is empirical because a majority think that way. I'm just saying I don't believe it is correct to say Rumsfeld was a success just because he believed what he was doing was the right thing or that he was doing it the right way. Or that he was a success in the fact that he was steadfast in his belief. As Troy said, just because one side believes they are correct doesn't mean they are. It is a matter of opinion. Right now, opinion as a whole, as far as the people of this coutry are concerned, is that he did not do a good job. Many of his own party and ranking military people involved directly feel that way as well. That is public record.

If this happened under Clinton's watch with similar circumstances, I believe I would say the same thing. That's my main point. Don't be so blinded that you can't admit when something is wrong or a failure. People on both sides of the aisle are so blinded by hate and distrust that they refuse to give the opponent one shread of respect. They can't admit when the other side has a valid point. (Troy and Shack, you are not included in this group.)

Polarized thinking and steadfast loyalty regardless of the facts is tearing this country apart and keeping folks angry. I'm an admitted Democrat yet I also believe we HAVE to stay in Iraq because there is no other choice. We cannot let that place become controlled by Iranian influence and overrun with terrorists. I can see the forest for the trees regardless of my oppossition to the war.

F1nut

The only reason that most countries EVER pretended to like us is because they either wanted our money or protection.

Bingo, we have a winner!!!

shack

bikezappa wrote:

Shack

You are 100% correct it is all speculation.

However there are some facts that are less than speculation.

How many people have died?
How much the war has cost the US?
How many people are wounded for life?
How many people have lost there homes and jobs?

Yes we do know the results of what has occured.

HOWEVER...

Had we not invaded Iraq, would Saddam have attacked someone else in the region drawing us into a larger war? Would a civil war broken out between the Suni, Shiite, Kurds to the same end? Would Iran been more bold? As Troy said could the war come to the US shores in the form of terrorist attacks if not for them concentrating on Iraq? All of which could have cost more lives, more wounded, more dollars more agony. I don't know....You don't know.

tommyboy

George Grand wrote:

We had the ENTIRE **** PLANET on our side on 12 Sep 01,

Do you guys think the war in Iraq is the exact reason why this has changed?...