Walsingham Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6130296.stm Donald Rumsfeld has been chucked out of the Pentagon! Outbloodystanding, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying he was a fool, but he misunderstood many of the problems, encouraged simplistic approaches in the field, and had skewed US military procurement. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I say he was a warmonger, plain and simple. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Warmonger with cheese? "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I say he was a warmonger, plain and simple. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> :'( I know He will be missed. No one could kill people, Americans and otherwise, like Rummy. Remember those secret prisons and torturing prisoners? Where have the good times gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 all those problems existed looooong before rumsfeld. the new era of journalism simply found it out. i wouldn't call rummy a war-monger, either. his goal was a small, light, and fast military. i.e., he wanted as few troops as possible in iraq. unfortunately, i think we needed to be a HUGE presence early on to discourage the so-called "insurgency" from neighboring countries and from within the various opposing clans in iraq itself. lessons learned that i hope we don't forget. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 He needed to go. Besides all the torture, mismanagement, lack of foresight, etc., he had lost the confidence of military personnel & leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 we needed to be a HUGE presence early on to discourage the so-called "insurgency" from neighboring countries and from within the various opposing clans in iraq itself. lessons learned that i hope we don't forget. Why? We apparently didn't learn similar lessons from Nam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkan Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 we needed to be a HUGE presence early on to discourage the so-called "insurgency" from neighboring countries and from within the various opposing clans in iraq itself. lessons learned that i hope we don't forget. Why? We apparently didn't learn similar lessons from Nam? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nam started off small, too, then it became a situation of escalating commitment. The same thing would happen now (probably) if we sent more troops to Iraq. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenghuang Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 About freaking time. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Why? We apparently didn't learn similar lessons from Nam? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> actually, we suffered the same problem then as now with iraq. they went in piecemeal rather than all out assault. the presence in nam was certainly larger, but we were also up against a much larger force backed by a real military. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Why? We apparently didn't learn similar lessons from Nam <{POST_SNAPBACK}> actually, we suffered the same problem then as now with iraq. Ya.....that's my point :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Ya.....that's my point :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the way it was originally phrased gave me the impression of "why huge?", which is what i was referring to. but yes, we did not learn. we needed to have a large presence early. it will not help, IMO, now. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 my guess? he lost in a power struggle to Condi and Cheney.... now we need one of those two to come out on top so we can get one of em out. Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Ya.....that's my point :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the way it was originally phrased gave me the impression of "why huge?", which is what i was referring to. but yes, we did not learn. we needed to have a large presence early. it will not help, IMO, now. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> what you didnt learn was that it's stupid and useless to "liberate" a nation on the other side of the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I don't think it's that as much as it is just a failure of leadership on his part. I for one am glad to see he's gone. I never liked what he was trying to do with the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 what you didnt learn was that it's stupid and useless to "liberate" a nation on the other side of the globe. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ok, i suppose you're entitled to your opinion. it's not like the US has cornered the market on this idea. the only difference between us and everyone else is that most countries in need of "liberation" just happen to be on the other side of the globe. europe and asia only have to walk next door. i suppose you could argue that much of south america is in need of liberation, but realistically, nobody really cares. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 It's easy to decry the excesses of Imperialism whilst living in a country with 5 million people next door to Russia ... " OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Interesting point raised on Newsnight. If had Donald Rumsfeld had been given the boot well before the mid-terms, the Republicans may not have suffered so much. The reasoning being that it may have been seen a fresh start for the Bush administration. Btw, politically astute yanks, has a vice president ever been "forced to resign"? Edited November 8, 2006 by Surreptishus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Apparently though he had offered his resignation more than once before, but Bush had refused him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Apparently though he had offered his resignation more than once before, but Bush had refused him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I know, so then it could be said Bush shot himself in the foot (duh) by clinging to Rumsfeld. All those jobless Republicans have someone to be mad at now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Btw, politically astute yanks, has a vice president ever been "forced to resign"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dunno. i'm not sure anyone has the authority to really "fire" a VP, though i'm sure pressure from the party could easily result in a forced resignation. back in the early days, the VP was actually elected separately, which caused many issues. realistically, it does not matter. the VP is a figurehead only. he has zero official power. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (edited) Ok, thanks. I'm trying to guess how all this will manifest itself with regards to Bush's policy-making for the remainder of his term. Edited November 8, 2006 by Surreptishus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 i don't expect many differences except with iraq and that would be primarily because of gates vs. rummy. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Btw, politically astute yanks, has a vice president ever been "forced to resign"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> dunno. i'm not sure anyone has the authority to really "fire" a VP, though i'm sure pressure from the party could easily result in a forced resignation. back in the early days, the VP was actually elected separately, which caused many issues. realistically, it does not matter. the VP is a figurehead only. he has zero official power. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> techically your wrong... in the early days the VP was the runner up in the populatiry contest we call presidential elections. :joy: I corrected Taks! Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now