Rumsfield Resigns!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Splash!  Tinkle, tinkle.

The splash was the bucket of water to cool the rhetoric(?), and the tinkle is what you think I think about the whole U.S. electoral process.

[Palpatine001 57]

I am amazed, this is being civil indeed I am impressed, in fact very IMPRESSED after being a veteran here. Looks like my comments got picked to Shreads further up Oh well, DT in regards to Rice, that would be not only funny but fly in the face of the Republicans.

We (of the world) can only wait and see what is going to happen between now and 08. In the mean time I have to get back and deal with my nation (New Zealand)s own woes.

[bourneid 13]

Originally posted by: Micah In my opinion, that is not true. The Democrats can make Iraq a complete success.quote>

 

eh....  we'll see.

It is all to easy to screw something up.....often times with little or no effort....it can even be done when the person doing the "screwing up" is completely unaware or doesnt care....

I mean I screw up with complete ease...often

it is a much harder task to fix things or do them right. And "fixing it up" or "doing it right" often takes great skill. Maybe the Dems with be able to "do the right thing" there, turn things around. Maybe Bush and company will be more open to new ideas. 

maybe this

maybe that

the truth....no matter what anyone says....its really...how much of it is even in our hands..... you have to remember that there a 100+ million people who have their own ideas....that didnt even partisipate in last nights election. It really has to be up to them.....

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: bourneid

Originally posted by: Micah In my opinion, that is not true. The Democrats can make Iraq a complete success.quote>

 

eh....  we'll see.

It is all to easy to screw something up.....often times with little or no effort....it can even be done when the person doing the "screwing up" is completely unaware or doesnt care....

I mean I screw up with complete ease...often

it is a much harder task to fix things or do them right. And "fixing it up" or "doing it right" often takes great skill. Maybe the Dems with be able to "do the right thing" there, turn things around. Maybe Bush and company will be more open to new ideas. 

maybe this

maybe that

the truth....no matter what anyone says....its really...how much of it is even in our hands..... you have to remember that there a 100+ million people who have their own ideas....that didnt even partisipate in last nights election. It really has to be up to them.....

quote>

 

I meant, perhaps the Democrats can bring better policy to the table and they will be able to work with Bush & the army generals to get things settled out in Iraq. By the way, most of these army generals wanted Rumsfeld to resign.

However, what it all comes down to is the Iraqi people. They ultimately decide whether Iraq is a success or not. Our government can put in as many soldiers, take out as many soldiers, and put in any amount of money, but none of that matters if the Iraqis don't stand up, fight these insurgents, and secure their own government.

[DARKO 3]

Good Riddance.

People are sick of Republican rule and the people have spoken. What have you Republicans really done?? Other than make things much worse than they were prior.

Iraq has been a enormous failure. You need to accept this. This Blind patriotism was cute at the beginning, but now its downright laughable and disturbing. Cohens character Borat pretty much exposes this.

[Palpatine001 57]

And so Bush finally admits the Republicans got (a much deserved) thumping http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425824/885407 and that now the Democrats have control of Congress (Lower and Senate Houses). Next two years are gonna be interesting.

[hamsterTK 93]

Iraq has been a enormous failure. You need to accept this. This Blind patroism was cute at the beginning, but now its downright laughable and disturbing. Cohens character Borat pretty much exposes this.quote>

I just saw that movie today. it was great..."Its laying a Jew-egg!" lmao. .I was thinking,  had they gone with bill cosby over cohen they couldve titled it "americans say the darndest things"

I agree 100%, the neocon attitude towards foreign policy is going to send our country down the toilet.

oddly besides that in some ways I actually like reagan style conservatism, well sort of.....

[davidjfaber 0]

And "peace is upon us with the republicans broken the western world can finnaly unite & fight al-quada & other terrorist organizations!" The Democrats (the American liberals, for those who don't know) want to pull us out overseas, and its not like everything is going to be la-de-do. See, Al-Qaida WANTED this. Without the stay-the-course Republicans, we can expect an attack before summer '07. Maybe even this year. Hopfully not.quote>

Don't get me wrong; I am a staunch opponent of the Democratic party.  However, I must say that your statements are hinting at conclusions which are wholly unsupported by the facts on the ground.  If you were to actually pay attention to what "the terrorists" are demanding you'd know that the U.S. war with Al Qaeda started in the 1980's when we built numerous military bases and stationed many thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia; the holiest of the Muslim states.  Now, to pose a leading-logic question to you; if you were a staunch Catholic would you be pleased about Iran building a military base in Italy or, religion aside, would you be o.k. with Egypt or Syria or Lebanon or, hell, Iraq building a military base on U.S. soil?  If not, it is highly hypocritical of you to suggest that Muslims should rejoice at the U.S. presence in the Middle East.  The only way to end the war of terror reasonably and with the least amount of bloodshed is for the U.S. to give up its dependence on foreign oil and remove its troops from the Muslim world.  That would also be the only way to help facilitate the rise of truly democratic states in the Middle East.  I say this because as it stands now U.S. oil companies and the U.S. government is propping up the brutal, oppressive and highly undemocratic regime of Saudi Arabia and the last Democratically elected Prime-Minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from power in a CIA-Sponsored Coup de-tat led by Kermit Roosevelt Jr. and was codenamed "Operation Ajax" in 1953.  (this event sewed the seeds for the Islamic Revolution in 1979)

So, it does you good to do your homework on history and political issues before you develop a strong opinion.  Otherwise you could end up supporting the exact OPPOSITE of what you thought you were supporting (such as democracy, stability, a positive conclusion to the war on terror, etc.).

[davidjfaber 0]

I should append my above post;

If we did just pull out of Iraq it would lead to worse overall bloodshed within Iraq because of the civil war on there. The Shia and Kurds control most of the oil fields in Iraq and that leaves the Sunni out in the proverbial rain. If we were to invest heavily in their economy we might be able to keep them from fighting over the one "cash crop" that they have an abundance of. I'm talking about diversifying their economy which would not cut any ethnic group from participating in an economically prosperous Iraq. Aside from that the civil war there is unlikely to end any time soon and partition is likely (which would set off a chain reaction so terrible that most nation-states on earth would experience the shock-waves. Just as an example; the Kurds being granted independence in Iraq would invariably draw distaste from Turkey when they have to answer the calls for independence from their sizable Kurdish minority. This would either cause them to clamp down a la 1980's/'90's Turkey or let them go which would change the direction of the European Union considering their primary aim with the incorporation of Turkey is to gain access to the extensive oil fields in Eastern Turkey. This might cause Europe to go through a change of direction in their economic-imperial ambitions and as such would necessitate the competitive forces in China and the U.S. to change tactics to try and block the gains of Europe no matter their new tactic.... etc...

[The_Dalai_Llama 15]

Okay... Republican coming through.

Rumsfeld, in my opinion, did a good job overall, but I think he needed to resign because of some mistakes made in the Iraq War, even though I continue to support the war and our troops.

And I wouldn't call the war an enormous failure, yet... just a marginal success with some cleaning up left to do.

[DuskTrooper 314]

Well, you people are forgetting something; the new guy's an Aggie...

(well, he didn't attend there, but, he was the pres of it.  Same difference!)

[timotheus4 39]

Rumsfeld was the USA minister of war (before that he was ceo of halley-burton, the company that got the biggest contracts in iraq) quote>

He was Secretary of Defense, not minister of war. And Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Rumsfeld was unrelated. And something that most people forgot: to be included on Bush's ticket in 2000, Cheney had to resign from Halliburton and give up a very lucrative multi-million dollar retirement package. All for a shot at being vice president. I wouldn't do it!

The Democrats can make Iraq a complete success.quote>

But they won't. Between now and 2012, Democrats in charge will complete the Vietnamization of Iraq. Think Nixon taking over after Johnson.

On a lighter note, why are they having Gates take over after Rumsfeld? Gates's track record for Windows security and Rumsfeld's track record for USA's security are remarkably similar.

[thundercrack83 0]

Davidjfaber: Your argument is very eloquent, but getting out of Saudi Arabia and reducing dependence on foreign oil isn't going to solve the problem because of one thing: Israel. As long as the United States continues to support Israel, the Arab world will hate the United States. You can stop the war in Iraq, invest in their economies, let them vote every day of the year, and all the people elected will be radical Muslim clerics who hate the United States and want to drive Israel into the sea. Everything in that part of the world boils down to religion and everything else is secondary. If the United States didn't support Israel, I don't think there would be an uprising amongst Arabs for U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. To end the hatred for America, you have to denounce Israel, and that will never happen. Until then, the military bases are necessary because we can't have people who swear to kill us building nuclear weapons and training terrorists to blow themselves up in Times Square.

[-M- 6]

Although I do not support or approve of the US's unequivocal support for Israel, I think it has and should be vital in the future.

If the US denounced Israel now the Arab world will see it as a mandate for them to wipe her off the face of the earth. I think some form of balance need to be found, however difficult and long such a process may be.

[thundercrack83 0]

-M-: I agree with you completely. If the U.S. decided to just stop supporting Israel today, it would be off the map by 2007.

[clamor_m 0]

I agree the USA must stand by Israel, but that should mean helping them to find a settlement with their neighbors: Israels current blasting away of anyone and anything is just making things worse than ever.

As for Rumsfeld departure, I'd like to believe that the States will now take steps to reconcile itself with the rest of the world - starting with it's own allies.

The USA is the only superpower on the planet, but by doing everything their own way and trying to force their will on everyone else they are digging their own grave.  I hope the time is ripe for a change of strategy.

The USA has so much to give to the rest of the world, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to take it if it doesn't want to!

Just a couple of  things that came to my mind

[parmenio 2]

As a U.S. citizen very upset by our nation's rapidly deteriorating credibility in the world and all that this entails, I see very little merit in a viable Israel if the price is an isolated America. U.S. foreign policy has never been defined by other nations' well-being nor charity, but about how America's strategic position can be made stronger. Occasionally this stance results in greater prosperity for the nations involved and the U.S. can rightfully claim the moral highground, such as was the case with U.S. dominance of Japan and parts of Germany after WWII.

But improvement of other nations are incidental and secondary relative to the primary goal of elevating America's global position. This is why the U.S. relationship with Israel is all the more perplexing. Upon the conclusion of the Cold War, the U.S. had no strategic reason to give the nearly unconditional support it currently provides Israel. It no longer needed a working democracy in the area (and it's a terrible myth that the U.S. has promoted democracy exclusively during the Cold War. The Carter administration basically had the South Korean president assassinated when the latter attempted to move his nation TOWARD democracy in 1979!) nor did the U.S. require Israeli assistance in carrying out illegal activities to fight communism around the world, like selling arms to Columbian death squads, for instance. Without this need, there was no strategic purpose for the U.S. to continue its unwaivering support for a regime that is essentially an apatheid state, especially in view of our energy concerns in the area and the incredible economic potential of increasing ties with the vast population of the region.

The rhetoric from the Bush administation has been that Israel is America's staunchest ally, and therefore the U.S. has a responsibility to protect her. But to what extent Israel is a U.S. ally remains very questionable. The U.S. provides Israel with three billion annually, sells them advanced weaponry, like the Patriot missile and Blackhawk helicopters, vetos all but the most minor criticism of their actions in the U.N. security council, supports the regime's preemtive wars and brutal treatment of the Palestinians, refuses to bring action against the Israeli nuclear program (even Iran is part of the non-proliferation treaty, but not Israel!), and simply willing to use U.S. military power in an attempt, botched as it was, to destroy Israeli's enemies. Since the conclusion of the Cold War, Israel has reciprocated with absolutely nothing. And for this nothing, the U.S. has enraged the greater portion of the Muslim people and endangered Americans around the world.

Absolutely nonsensical. The U.S. has nothing to benefit from protecting Israel and everything to lose, and this runs contradictory to everything international politics are typically based on. The question is: Why?

As for Rumsfeld, he was a disaster. Sustaining Iraq after ousting Saddam would have been difficult with any number of troops, but to send in 80,000 initially, which was less than a fourth of what military planners had wanted, is demonstrative of the extreme ideologue that Rumsfeld is. He should hang.

Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, thundercrack. Good points.

[Nik-nik 3]

Hey guys I am from Europe so I am not a specialist on the Demo vs. Repo discussion but I would like to add my two cents here.

I believe this thread is about Mr. Rumsfield resigning and not the Iraqi war.

My guess is that he knew what was comming and got the hell out of there. With a democratic majority in one and possible two houses (Virginia still has to count over) the possibility of the start of investigation committee after investigation commitee is very high.

Mr. Rumsfield was not popular in the Pentagon (=euphemistically speaking, some generals could drink his blood) and made some questionable decisions (not enough manpowder in Iraq, too light military units to start etc).

So getting the hell out of the Pentagon was in all a very smart strategic manoeuvre, whether you like the man or his party or not.

Nik-Nik

[-M- 6]

I believe this thread is about Mr. Rumsfield resigning and not the Iraqi war.quote>

Mr. Rumsfeld is synonomous with the war in Iraq.

And by the way, I love your signature. A great speech indeed!

[Equilibria 16]

Parmenio:

The strategic reason why we continue to support Israel is that old adage: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Israel blew up Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in the 1980s, something a lot of Iraq War detractors have forgotten. Saddam was, in fact, trying to build nukes back then, and had the reactor survived he would have succeeded. Given that he was at that point at war with Iran, he would likely have thrown whatever he got both at Israel and at Iran, leading to plenty of Persian and Muslim deaths (probably into the millions). That we found no WMDs in Iraq in the first place is largely due to Israel's help.

Israel has, albeit with our material support, the best military on the planet, bar none. The U.S. military is far larger, and is the best among the major nations, but it is simply impossible to train and equip a military the size of ours in the way Israel has managed to do (I support our troops, of course, but Iraq has proven that while we certainly don't lack for bravery and heart, we do lack for training, supplies, and armor). They fight terrorists every day who might otherwise be planning for attacks against Europe or the U.S. They did not create the problem of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism, that would exist as long as the West was more affluent than the Middle East. They merely became a lightning rod for it.

Bush and the Republicans were correct in supporting Israel, as, by the way, was Clinton and his Democrats before them. Rumsfeld never sent a single soldier to fight on Israeli soil, so he does not have a tremendous amount of responsibility for the situation there, anyway (other Republican leaders do, though, like Sec. of State Condi Rice).

Foreign Policy speaches have little place on this thread, and I've gone on too long already. I simply believe it makes a lot more sense to give Israel the means to fight our enemies than to send our own young people over there to die.

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Gosh, watching Rumsfeld today, I could not help but remember the made-for-tv movie Path to War, which dramatizes the politicking and ideological ineptitudes inside LBJ's administration during the early escalation of the Vietnam war.  It may not be entirely accurate in some historical portrayals, but the writer must have been clairvoyant, for though made in 2002, it almost predicts in lock-step the current situation with Iraq with our current Texan President.  Rumsfeld's strained philosophical acceptance of the President's praise even as the Secretary was being publicly sacked looked so much like Alec Baldwin's Robert McNamara at his public hatchet job, I can't separate the two images.  I hope the farsightedness of Path to War ends there, though, for Vietnam grows so much worse even after the hated McNamara left.  I wonder who among Bush's circle has the role of Donald Sutherland's clever Clark Clifford?  Do check the movie out, if only to see the frighteningly ridiculous portrayal of Joint Chief generals having their woefully inadequate and underthought plans turned upside down by the simple math of too-few-troops.

Even LBJ's opposition Republican warhawks could see it:  "Do you know what is wrong with this war, Mr. President?  We have been going to war by inches.  Inches!!!...when we should be striding Proudly, like Americans."

[Micah 16]

The Democrats can make Iraq a complete success.

But they won't. Between now and 2012, Democrats in charge will complete the Vietnamization of Iraq. Think Nixon taking over after Johnson. quote>

I'm not saying the Democrats will make Iraq a success, I'm saying that they have the ability to. Basically, the '08 elections are up to the Democrats (& Bush). In my view, if the Democrats don't secure Iraq before pulling out, then all violence will reign in Iraq, no one in the future will want us to save them since they saw this defeat in Iraq (& Vietnam), and there will be more hatred throughout the Muslim world. Pulling out of Iraq too soon is not an option on my list.

Also, although I wanted change, I'm am not at all a fan of investigation after investigation. The people want unity, not another fight between one party to the other.

[thundercrack83 0]

Odainsaker: I've seen that movie on HBO and I thought it was fantastic. There is definitely a correlation between the Johnson administration then and the current Bush administration.