Jump to content

Rumsfeld Out!!


Parky
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6130296.stm

 

 

:occasion14:

 

Bush is shitting himself.............The ship it sinks..... blueyes.gif

 

"US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is standing down, after anger over the war in Iraq led to bruising losses for Republicans in mid-term elections.

President George W Bush said that he and Mr Rumsfeld had agreed that a "fresh perspective" was needed in Iraq."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Donald Rumsfeld, you shook Saddam's hand in 1983, as an official representative of the United States of America, which at that time hated Iran so much that it was willing to work with thugs like Hussein, and to supply them with every form of weaponry imaginable.  You knew he was using poison gas, and you said not one word against it.  You knew he was obtaining biological agents; you encouraged it.  Now you're point-man in parroting Bush's litany of half-truths and outright lies about why we "must" invade Iraq.  Shame on you!

 

But our list of Rumsfeld's crimes is just beginning.  Fast-forward from 1983 to the war in Afghanistan, which began shortly after 09-11.  We took lots of prisoners.  We could have respected their rights according to the Geneva Convention, to which the U.S. was an enthusiastic signatory.  But no-o-o-o-o-o!  Instead Rumsfeld and his cronies invented a fantasy name for the people captured, "Illegal Enemy Combatant."  All were paraded before television cameras, bound, shackled, hooded, tied, humiliated.  Some were then spirited off to "Camp X-Ray" in Cuba, there to be held under inhumane conditions, with no contact with lawyers, family, or indeed, any other human being in the world.  Others were held in Afghanistan, where we know they have been subjected to torture while in U.S. control; two recently died and their official death reports specify "blunt force trauma" as the cause.

 

It would have cost us little to make a big show of adhering to the Geneva Convention.  True, we would have had to let some people go, people for whom we could provide no evidence whatever of any guilt whatsoever.  Uhhh, what's wrong with that, again?  How does that cost us?  Instead, we're locking up an endless number of people, many of whom are in all likelihood completely innocent of any crime.  And what's that gaining us, again?  Other than another sink-hole for that unending stream of tax dollars I'm expected to provide each year?  And another ratcheting up of the anger of the world against us?"

 

 

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/delaubenfels/delaubenfels2.html

 

 

 

Instead Rumsfeld and his cronies invented a fantasy name for the people captured, "Illegal Enemy Combatant."  All were paraded before television cameras, bound, shackled, hooded, tied, humiliated.  Some were then spirited off to "Camp X-Ray" in Cuba, there to be held under inhumane conditions, with no contact with lawyers, family, or indeed, any other human being in the world.  Others were held in Afghanistan, where we know they have been subjected to torture while in U.S. control; two recently died and their official death reports specify "blunt force trauma" as the cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ridzuan

This is wrong,its just wrong.Mr Rumsfeld was a great Secretary of Defence and he should have stayed.I think its because of the election result that he was force to resign because he was doing a good job and there was no reason for him to do so.Anyway,life have to move on and I hope the new SOD,Dr.Robert Gates can continue the good job as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you use the word great in conjunction with Rumsfeld. See Parky above. Anything Rumsfeld has done to rectify abuses has been media led.

Leaving aside the war in Iraq the Republican party have demonstrated that Orwell's 1984 has moved from the USSR to the USA. Wire tapping, censorship, detention (of foreign nationals) without trial and various forms of torture.

 

Of course Rumsfelds replacement (ex CIA ) Director will change the above - yeah, right. The CIA is the Administrations means of supporting fascism and dictatorships and undermining democratically elected governments to suit the needs of business and what is laughingly referred to as foreign policy.

 

The Democrats will not walk out on Iraq but will gradually withdraw - as would Bush have done. The difference being they are going with voter pressure.

 

As the US Constitution prevents (as I read it)  the use of the US Army etc in the USA (National Guard) they may as well wind up the armed forces and put the money into giving the UN some teeth. Sorry, that cannot happen, its PC. This whole situation should have been resolved with the UN sending troops into Iraq as a continuation of the Gulf War. But business is business and oil is oil.

 

The American people I have met over the years are great. Just poorly served by a political system which is superbly constructed but has been corrupted - not necessarily corrupt.

 

Apologies for the rant but as a centrist, who believes polititians and political structures are to manage the running of a country for its inhabitants benefit, I find political dogma nauseating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Ridzuan

Dont believe all the things you read or listen in the media.They are just propaganda machine.Listen to someone who knows him best.Who else if not President George Bush.Go to www.whitehouse.gov and watch the departure video on him where Mr Bush clearly and rightly tells the public what a great man Mr Rumsfeld is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont believe all the things you read or listen in the media.They are just propaganda machine.Listen to someone who knows him best.Who else if not President George Bush.Go to www.whitehouse.gov and watch the departure video on him where Mr Bush clearly and rightly tells the public what a great man Mr Rumsfeld is.

 

:lol:

 

You're great entertainment, you should inquire about a PR job at the White House yourself. Not even the ones who get paid for it do as much brown-nosing as you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing that could of happened to the cunt, now all we need to do is get rid of the rest of oil barons stooges just for the US to put in Corporations stooges just got to love American politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Rumsfeld, Sir, I hope you die the way of those you sent, as burdened by guilt as the terrorists you supported, as evil as the tyrants you backed and poached, as helpless as the people you lied to and continue to do so, and, finally, I hope, for the rest of eternity, that you are mocked forever on The Daily Show by Jon Stewart for your laughable excuses for the Iraq war and that infamous clip showing you explaining to your own soldiers why they don't need additional armour in Iraq, as "when a mortar hits you, extra armour isn't going to do much anyways."

 

Mr. Rumsfeld, you have shocked, awed and entertained, and for your role in spiralling America towards the goal of attaining eternal, never-ending power over this world and the infinite unknown, I commend you, as like many famous men before you, you refused to see any other point of view and stuck to your guns.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riszuan,

Wake up and smell reality. Do you think Bush would call in Rumsfeld and say "ÿou fucked up, now weve lost control of both houses so fuck off"? Of course not. In politics the departure or death of youre worst enemy is usually accompanied by "sad loss, need for new direction"and other such bastard phrases.

 

If for no other reason Rumsfeld should have been sacked BEFORE the invasion. He commited the cardinal sin of any commander designing an invasion - calculate the troop numbers needed then double the number. Then if the invasion is on foreign territory but accessable by land - double the number again. Then if its overseas quadrouple the last number.

 

Stormin Norman knew this during the gulf war and got it right. For a limited invasion.

 

He also neglected the lessons of Vietnam - who IS the enemy - they are not wearing uniforms. Rumsfeld should have read an account of the Indonesian insurgency in Malaya - 1950's. Section off the country, search and identify everything, no id jail, shoot at us you die.

 

Iraq fell in the middle of this numbers game but Rumsfeld ignored the advice given. This was not a battle but the take over of another country. To do this in the modern era, invade, secure then administer and defend needed 1 million men minimum.   The argument I have is not anti American or anti Iraq war but merely that Rumsfeld was lucky to be given a graceful exit - he could, because of his support for Abbu Gra-- and Guantanamo Bay be a legitimate target for war crimes.

 

However before we all get carried away over the crap being perpetrated in Iraq I must remind the EU nations of Serbia, Croatia and Kosovo. That this conflict and ethnic cleansing was allowed to start, never mind escalate and continue is nothing more than pathetic and a lasting shame Europe must bear.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Riszuan,

Wake up and smell reality. Do you think Bush would call in Rumsfeld and say "ÿou fucked up, now weve lost control of both houses so fuck off"? Of course not. In politics the departure or death of youre worst enemy is usually accompanied by "sad loss, need for new direction"and other such bastard phrases.

 

If for no other reason Rumsfeld should have been sacked BEFORE the invasion. He commited the cardinal sin of any commander designing an invasion - calculate the troop numbers needed then double the number. Then if the invasion is on foreign territory but accessable by land - double the number again. Then if its overseas quadrouple the last number.

 

Stormin Norman knew this during the gulf war and got it right. For a limited invasion.

 

He also neglected the lessons of Vietnam - who IS the enemy - they are not wearing uniforms. Rumsfeld should have read an account of the Indonesian insurgency in Malaya - 1950's. Section off the country, search and identify everything, no id jail, shoot at us you die.

 

Iraq fell in the middle of this numbers game but Rumsfeld ignored the advice given. This was not a battle but the take over of another country. To do this in the modern era, invade, secure then administer and defend needed 1 million men minimum.  The argument I have is not anti American or anti Iraq war but merely that Rumsfeld was lucky to be given a graceful exit - he could, because of his support for Abbu Gra-- and Guantanamo Bay be a legitimate target for war crimes.

 

However before we all get carried away over the crap being perpetrated in Iraq I must remind the EU nations of Serbia, Croatia and Kosovo. That this conflict and ethnic cleansing was allowed to start, never mind escalate and continue is nothing more than pathetic and a lasting shame Europe must bear.

 

 

 

:thup:

 

blueyes.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, even disenfranchised (lost the vote) Republicans have the right to their opinion. We read, we listen, we agree, we dissagree and after we have a beer. Unfortunately in the case of Iraq and Kosova many thousands of innocents die while we are being civilised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Emergency in Malaya in the 1950's was totally different from the Indonesian "Konfrontasi"  in the 60's

 

The first was the CP Malaya working within the country with a great deal of support from the ethnic CHinese against the Malays & the Brits - this the classic "low intensity operations" success by the Brits

 

Kontfrontasi was Sukarno 's attempt to destabilise Malaysia, distract attention from internal  problems in the RI and maybe grab the whole of Borneo/Kailimantan.  It was 99% EXTERNAL action with commandoes being fed into Malayisa through the jungle.  The British kept the whole thing from boiling over into open war and using "hearts and minds" unleashed the Dayak - by the end of the thing the Indon's couldn't get anywhere near their OWN border without finishing a head shorter.....................

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...