It's time for Rumsfeld to go

Quote:

Because had there been WMD there, and had Hussein remained in power, the weapons would someday soon have been used to annihilate a huge number of American or other lives.

I know this guy who lives down the road from me. He has been in trouble with the law before involving women and rape. I am afraid that he is going to try and hurt me so I am going to go to his house and kill him. When the police come to pick me up I will just tell them that he has been in trouble before and he has it in him to rape so I just killed him before he could do it therefore saving all women from his evil clutches.

0 Replies

revel
revel, we will continue to hear it so lets have a big A2K community scream:

AAAAACCCCHHHHH!!!

BBB

0 Replies

Quote:

Mr. Rumsfeld, who was also criticized this week by Mr. Bush for not keeping him fully informed, said he did not realize that investigations into troop behaviour were serious enough to warrant attention at the top ranks of government.

"Let me be clear, I failed to recognize how important it was to elevate a matter of such gravity to the highest levels, including to the President and members of Congress," he said.

link

Aren't people in these positions supposed to possess superior levels of judgement than the average bear?

0 Replies

hi revel- A chapter from the Book of Bushlogic! Scary.

0 Replies

So is every disciplinary matter required to be elevated all the way to the President?

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Quote:
Because had there been WMD there, and had Hussein remained in power, the weapons would someday soon have been used to annihilate a huge number of American or other lives.

I know this guy who lives down the road from me. He has been in trouble with the law before involving women and rape. I am afraid that he is going to try and hurt me so I am going to go to his house and kill him. When the police come to pick me up I will just tell them that he has been in trouble before and he has it in him to rape so I just killed him before he could do it therefore saving all women from his evil clutches.

Actually, your argument is not a bad one, but I disagree with what you are trying to say. We are talking about hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives, obliterated in seconds in the case of a nuke, or pretty quickly with a bioweapon. In that case, we're pretty much talking about the near destruction of the US, since you can imagine what the consequences of such an event would be. Even in the probably less serious case of chemical weapons, we might be talking about 50 or 100 thousand people killed in just a single event. Furthermore, it is known that Hussein had programs to develop the weapons, had had some of them, had used them, and had lied about them. He appeared to be accumulating the means to do such a thing in the future, and peaceful means to stop him were thought by many to have been exhausted.

Perhaps this is closer to someone being arrested for conspiracy to commit mass murder.

0 Replies

Tarantulas
Tarantulas, so you think this offense was at the same level of "every disciplinary matter"? Interesting perspective you have.

BBB

0 Replies

It seems that very little in the Bush administration is important enough to disrupt Bush's endless journeys to the ranch or Camp David. I wonder what the hell he does when he's actually in residence? Is there anything of import to this guy?

0 Replies

Brandon, Which armed forces are you talking about when you say ".... but it will probably have to be repeated more than once in the not too distant future,....."?. Our military men and women are now serving the longest term in war conditions in Iraq. The ideal period is 180 days maximum, and many are serving over one year. How do you propose our military "repeat" what we are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? You must have a magic hat, or you fit in with the dodos that got us involved in this war without understanding the long term consequences.

0 Replies

Brandon, If you're talking about "threats" like in North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, and they all "have" WMDs, what's your next move?

0 Replies

Tarantulas,

You've got to be kidding... Exclamation

A secretary of defense who hears about abuse going on in prisons that his military is responsible for, in a country they invaded, in this day & age & political climate...

Pictures travel fast around the world nowadays. Of course it's his responsibility to keep the prez up to date - a one sentence mention would be better than nothing... something to the effect of "George, there are stories of abuse going on in the prisons in Iraq. I'm looking into it." so that the prez doesn't get blind-sided. At least then the prez could decide if he needed more info. To say nothing is criminal.

This administration has been so good at marketing, you'd think that a basic communication like this would be second nature. But I guess reports to the prez about how is doing in the polls at home probably take priority to reports of prisoner abuse - cause that's on the other side of the world and all.

1 edit: typo

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, Which armed forces are you talking about when you say ".... but it will probably have to be repeated more than once in the not too distant future,....."?. Our military men and women are now serving the longest term in war conditions in Iraq. The ideal period is 180 days maximum, and many are serving over one year. How do you propose our military "repeat" what we are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? You must have a magic hat, or you fit in with the dodos that got us involved in this war without understanding the long term consequences.

If you feel that calling me a dodo helps your argument, then so be it. First of all, I am talking about the need to do something, as opposed to the means to do something. I am saying that as a simple consequence of the advance of technology, the historical trend since WMD were invented has been for them to become available to more and more people, just as the advance of technology has made PCs available to more and more people. It is to be expected that this trend will continue and that various entities will attempt to build or buy WMD in the future. As I keep saying, these are weapons so powerful that in the worst case scenario, one use of one could kill a million people. When someone of Hussein's type attempts to obtain such weapons, he cannot be permitted to do so. If peaceful means do not appear to work, non-peaceful means will ultimately have to be employed. Barring some major change in the world to alter this logic, this is what's coming. More and more people will attempt to obtain WMD and some of them will have to be stopped. If we allow various evil dictators to obtain WMD, a huge number of people will die. Most likely the weapons would be smuggled into the target country and detonated from inside. If WMD were to simultaneously destroy Washington, New York, and Los Angeles, which is quite possible, what do you think the condition of the country would be like for the next few decades? So, I am talking about a danger as opposed to commenting on our means to face it.

To briefly discuss our capability or lack thereof to face it, many wars have been fought on multiple fronts and lasted longer than a year. We need to develop the means to deal with these dangers, or face the consequences. Maybe at some point a draft will have to be reinstated.

0 Replies

Brandon,

It would also be helpful if we didn't preemptively strike nations, further fueling other nation's anger and desire to get WMD in order to pay us back.

Willfully engaging in unnecessary wars only increases global tensions, making everyone's trigger fingers itchy.

You won't agree, I understand, but when you use violence against people, their means of retaliation is violence. When you use diplomacy, then tend to respond in kind.

Let's stop fighting and start talking. That way our grandkids will be able to enjoy this beautiful world of ours.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon, If you're talking about "threats" like in North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, and they all "have" WMDs, what's your next move?

You have accurately pointed out a very dangerous situation. My next move is to tell you that millions may die as a consequence of this proliferation of WMD to countries which include fairly nasty dictatorships.

Syria might, for example, give the WMD to terrorists with instructions to silence the US once and for all. After a crippling blow had been struck against us, Syria, being responsible, might express their shock and condolences, and send over blankets and other charitable donations to assist us.

North Korea might decide that they would have an easier time negotiating with us if a few nukes were to soften us up a little. I'm sure that after Washington had been obliterated, they too would express their surprise and sympathy.

I am saying that the proliferation of these weapons puts mankind in terrible and fairly imminent danger, and that if we want to survive, we must act very aggressively to deal with it.

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Brandon,

It would also be helpful if we didn't preemptively strike nations, further fueling other nation's anger and desire to get WMD in order to pay us back.

Willfully engaging in unnecessary wars only increases global tensions, making everyone's trigger fingers itchy.

You won't agree, I understand, but when you use violence against people, their means of retaliation is violence. When you use diplomacy, then tend to respond in kind.

Let's stop fighting and start talking. That way our grandkids will be able to enjoy this beautiful world of ours.

And if a terrible man-made plague kills millions of Americans, because we allowed Husseins, Hitlers, and Stalins to covertly accumulate these weapons, what sort of world would your grand kids, should they be among the survivors, inherit?

0 Replies

Brandon seems to think only the US has the responsibility to fight terrorism - similar to the thinking of this administration. That's faulty logic; it's the world's problem. We cannot stop progress in technology; there is no way to control it. You and your kind are in fear of fear itself; not logical. Think: how many Saddams do you think this world has today? How many are in a position to produce, buy, and steal the technology for WMDs to use against another country? But more importantly, for what purpose? What do they gain? Better still, what do they lose? Any tyrant that may decide to go outside their borders to use WMDs will have to deal with the world community - not just the US.
******
When the US makes unilateral decisions for aggression against another country, most "fair" (not fear) minded people and countries will not become party to the crime against humanity. Not much mention is made by "you" people, but our aggression on Iraq killed over 10,000 innocent people - mostly women and children. Your insensitivity to this very fact turns my stomach. So which country do you people want to strike against next?

0 Replies

Jer wrote:

Tarantulas,

You've got to be kidding...

Not at all. When should the President be notified of soldiers who commit illegal acts? What's the criteria? What's the procedure? Where is the dividing line?

0 Replies

I don't know. Don't know. Wasn't aware of that. Didn't see them. I don't know. Only found out yesterday. Not told. Don't know. I can't hear you. Only found out yesterday. Not told. Don't know.

I can't hear you.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Brandon seems to think only the US has the responsibility to fight terrorism - similar to the thinking of this administration. That's faulty logic; it's the world's problem. We cannot stop progress in technology; there is no way to control it. You and your kind are in fear of fear itself; not logical.

You are wrong, I do think it's the world's problem, but the countries that are willing to act should not be stopped by the unwillingness of others to. We want as many countries in partnership with us as we can get, but in the end, the problems must be dealt with. The danger posed by the present and future proliferation of WMD is very grave indeed and must be faced. You say that I am in fear of fear, which is odd, since I have told you that I am in fear of WMD, and you have not denied that the danger exists or that it will become worse as time goes on.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Think: how many Saddams do you think this world has today? How many are in a position to produce, buy, and steal the technology for WMDs to use against another country? But more importantly, for what purpose? What do they gain?

I am saying that, as with PCs, the advance of technology will bring WMD within the grasp of more and more who want them. Look at the historical trend. Once no one had nukes, then only the US, then only the US and Russia, then a very small nuclear club, now a larger group of countries, and the weapons are now possessed by smaller and less wealthy countries than before. The trend is pretty clear. For what purpose? What do they gain? Ask North Korea, or Hussein (who did attempt to obtain them). The fact is that countries are attempting to obtain them. Perhaps some terrorist group or small dictatorship would view WMD as the preferred method of overcoming the conventional superiority of the US.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Better still, what do they lose? Any tyrant that may decide to go outside their borders to use WMDs will have to deal with the world community - not just the US.

If you're talking about fear of retaliation being a deterrent, first of all, it might not be that easy to tell who was responsible, particularly if there were chaos and destruction at the site of the detonation. Tell me who was responsible for the anthrax mail incident that occurred after 9/11. Furthermore, a terrorist group might not even have a return address to direct retaliation to. The suicide bombers we see don't seem to be particularly deterred by the threat of personal consequences. A suicidal madman, can, by definition, not be deterred by the threat of retaliation.

cicerone imposter wrote:

When the US makes unilateral decisions for aggression against another country, most "fair" (not fear) minded people and countries will not become party to the crime against humanity. Not much mention is made by "you" people, but our aggression on Iraq killed over 10,000 innocent people - mostly women and children. Your insensitivity to this very fact turns my stomach.

Many wars have been unilateral, but this isn't one of them. The need was there. We appealed to the community of nations and then went ahead with those who were in agreement. The real factor is not whether our action is unilateral, but whether it is necessary. You seem to equate the mere fact of war with a crime against humanity. There have been many wars in history that are usually considered just. As to your casualty figure, I agree that the deaths of innocent bystanders to wars are awful, but this is not something unique to this war. This also happened in wars that are historically considered just. One must do one's very best to keep the deaths of bystanders as low as possible.

cicerone imposter wrote:

So which country do you people want to strike against next?

When someone of the caliber of a Hussein, or a Hitler, or a Stalin begins the process of acquiring and stockpiling WMD, something will have to be done or the consequences a bit down the road will likely be horrific. The use of a very few WMD within the US could kill an unimaginable number of people and make us a 3rd world country for a long time. Peaceful means are always preferrable, but if they appear to have been exhausted and the country in question may be making progress in accumulating WMD while they negotiate in bad faith, other means will have to be used.

0 Replies

If Rumsfeld had any honor, he'd pack up his desk and slither out the back door.

But what neocon has honor? After all folks, we're talking about the neocon who brokered the arms sales to none other than Saddam Hussein during Reagan's administration in 1983.

These are scummy people.

0 Replies

It's time for Rumsfeld to go

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know