Is Rumsfeld an idiot?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-31 12:19am

But when he's right about something he still doesn't stand on princple. That's my point, he won't take the risk for a good cause.

And it's really simple, Dubya, Cheney, and Rumsfel all hate Saddam. So they'll use a razor thing premise to go after him.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2002-10-31 12:46am

ElBlanco wrote: If we want more oil, there are a lot easier ways of going about it. And it is obviously a lot more complicated than taking down the bad guy.

There's more than enough oil on the world market to satisfy US requirements. What Shrubby wants are the contracts to pump Iraqi oil out of the ground and pump money into the net worth of the Bush family and its friends. Shrubby wants to take over Iraq to make himself richer.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-10-31 11:23pm

[quote="Shinova"]
Cruise missiles. They're preferred over artillery shells.

I doubt we'll see a single artillery shell fired if we go to war against Iraq.

Oh, and Bush and the whole Bush administration are all messed up. Our country is run by a bunch of....I don't know how to describe them.[/quote]

Main problem is that our military is low on Tomahawks and haven't started (to the best of my knowledge) acquiring JASSM CMs yet. They have the JASSM bomb packages but not the missiles. Plus, as was mentioned earlier, each cruise missile fired is over a million dollars. The primary advantage of artillery is speed of response. A well trained crew can get fire on target within a few minutes. If your missile ship is way off shore (like most of the time), it may take half an hour or more to get fire on target. You can have fancy cruise missiles, I'll take a half-dozen Paladins with a few dozen shells each.

Post by **Steve** » 2002-11-01 08:35am

We don't need a premise to invade Iraq anymore, we already have one!

Hussein violated the ceasefire of the original war. That's casus belli right there.

Bush can attack whenever he chooses, and there's not one legal problem with it, no matter what the lefties cry.

I just hope he gets this business finished in time for the 2nd anniversary of 9-11, so Hussein's rotten corpse can be used as a part of the memorial.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-01 10:36pm

We don't need a premise to invade Iraq anymore, we already have one!

Hussein violated the ceasefire of the original war. That's casus belli right there.

Bush can attack whenever he chooses, and there's not one legal problem with it, no matter what the lefties cry.

I just hope he gets this business finished in time for the 2nd anniversary of 9-11, so Hussein's rotten corpse can be used as a part of the memorial.

Bush cant invade Iraq with the purpose of toppling the gov't and occupying the country with a military governer. That by any definition I can think of is a War and the constitution does not give him that power.

Dont confuse "lefties" with people who oppose a war in Iraq. I know plenty of conservatives and moderates who oppose a war in Iraq. Id dare to say most people who support going in are "chickenhawks". People with no combat experience or who do not serve in a combat unit.

As for 9-11-02 , what does Hussein have to do with the World Trade Center. Nothing! Im still asking were is Ossama??

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-01 10:54pm

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
We don't need a premise to invade Iraq anymore, we already have one!

Hussein violated the ceasefire of the original war. That's casus belli right there.

Bush can attack whenever he chooses, and there's not one legal problem with it, no matter what the lefties cry.

I just hope he gets this business finished in time for the 2nd anniversary of 9-11, so Hussein's rotten corpse can be used as a part of the memorial.
Bush cant invade Iraq with the purpose of toppling the gov't and occupying the country with a military governer. That by any definition I can think of is a War and the constitution does not give him that power.

Dont confuse "lefties" with people who oppose a war in Iraq. I know plenty of conservatives and moderates who oppose a war in Iraq. Id dare to say most people who support going in are "chickenhawks". People with no combat experience or who do not serve in a combat unit.

As for 9-11-02 , what does Hussein have to do with the World Trade Center. Nothing! Im still asking were is Ossama??

Actually the Consitution states that Congress has the power to declare war, and the Congress passed the bill authorizing the President to attack Iraq if he sees fit. And as I see it, the coming war with Iraq is going to destroy a linchpin of trouble in a region that is vital not only for us but for our so called allies as well. If Iraq falls, and can be rebuilt with a democracy then a stabilizing preasence could be established in the ME. And as always IMHO.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-11-01 11:03pm

Look, I do think it has to be done, but that has to be the first time I have ever heard "stabilizing presence" and "democracy" used in reference to the Middle East. If we do decide to knock off Hussien, it is going to be a long dragged out process. They do not have a great history of human rights in that area. The people just aren't familiar with it.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-01 11:09pm

Actually the Consitution states that Congress has the power to declare war, and the Congress passed the bill authorizing the President to attack Iraq if he sees fit. And as I see it, the coming war with Iraq is going to destroy a linchpin of trouble in a region that is vital not only for us but for our so called allies as well. If Iraq falls, and can be rebuilt with a democracy then a stabilizing preasence could be established in the ME. And as always IMHO.

Congress is going along because they are afraid of looking bad. Just like in Vietnam they dont do their job. Im sure some of the truely think we should go in and end Iraq. But you have to wonder why not Pakistan and N Korea.

As for destroying a linchpin of trouble, I saw right now the biggest problem is the middle east is not Iraq and has not been since we kicked him out of Kuwait.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the biggest problem in my opinion. Also dont forget the saudi arabia is the place where the 9-11 terrorists come from.

I just dont see Iraq as much of the threat. Lets face it the most of the entire region is a shit hole. And I dont think Iraq will develop into a democracy like Japan and Germany did. I could be wrong, but I dont think so.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-11-01 11:22pm

Congress is going along because they are afraid of looking bad. Just like in Vietnam they dont do their job. Im sure some of the truely think we should go in and end Iraq. But you have to wonder why not Pakistan and N Korea.

Gee, maybe it's because neither Pakistan nor North Korea have a motive to attack the US?

No, that couldn't be it, and even if it was, that's a horrible reason! God forbid the US protect it's own interests!

As for destroying a linchpin of trouble, I saw right now the biggest problem is the middle east is not Iraq and has not been since we kicked him out of Kuwait.

Oh, of course not. He won't try to develop nukes. He won't ever contemplate launching said nukes against Israel, touching off a ME nuclear holocaust. He wouldn't dare invade neighboring countries, because he has such a squeaky clean record.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the biggest problem in my opinion. Also dont forget the saudi arabia is the place where the 9-11 terrorists come from.

Of course! Let's invade Saudi Arabia! I mean, the House of Saud is under our thumb, and any invasion will likely result in Islamic fundies seizing power, but these are merely trivial facts and details.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-01 11:31pm

Gee, maybe it's because neither Pakistan nor North Korea have a motive to attack the US?

No , that couldn't be it, and even if it was, that's a horrible reason! God forbid the US protect it's own interests!

What is IRAQ's motive to attack us? Aside from shooting at aircraft in the no fly zone, what has Iraq done.

Oh, of course not. He won't try to develop nukes. He won't ever contemplate launching said nukes against Israel, touching off a ME nuclear holocaust. He wouldn't dare invade neighboring countries, because he has such a squeaky clean record.

I never said he would not try to develop nukes. But if he does, why would he use them against Isreal which would ensure a retaliation.

He can invade other countries without the WORLD responding. Not just the US. Tell me, if the other countries are so afraid of him, why do they NOT support a US invasion.

Of course! Let's invade Saudi Arabia! I mean, the House of Saud is under our thumb, and any invasion will likely result in Islamic fundies seizing power, but these are merely trivial facts and details.

And I suppose invading Iraq and keeping an American occupying force in the Middle East for the next several decades will soothe the region??

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-01 11:36pm

Cyril wrote: Of course! Let's invade Saudi Arabia! I mean, the House of Saud is under our thumb, and any invasion will likely result in Islamic fundies seizing power, but these are merely trivial facts and details.

While the ibn-Saud family may support the United States to our face, the government-run newspapers are extremely anti-Western and especially anti-American. Additionally, the Wahabbi branch of Islam, the extremist branch followed by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, that branch of Islam was founded by a personal friend of the first King Saud. Wahabbism is prevalent in Saudi Arabia, and they are the ones exporting anti-American Islamic extremism to other parts of the Muslim world. While they may not be the largest overt threat to the United States, they are most certainly not solid allies, and not to be trusted.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-01 11:38pm

Short-term is negligible in leiu of long-term. Turning Iraq into a liberal democracy on the Western model like we did with Japan and West Germany after WW II (that means occupation, not doing a half-assed job like Cold War fuck ups in Latin America) will help change the character of the region.

You can't worry constantly about the popular opinion in those countries, you can't conduct war with concerns like that. The number of Saudis becoming Al Quaeda terrorists is negligible. Taking away some nukes and providing a liberal moderating influence in the Middle East will help compensate for the fucking quagmire of Isreali-Palestinian relations. And that is one of the reasons they dislike the U.S. at times: without us, Isreal would not exist.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-01 11:40pm

Qatar and Turkey and Kuwait are allowing us access. The President has already established a coalition of around 10 countries.

France's and Russia's Security Coucil opposition is linked to the simple fact Saddam owes them money, and their afraid that if he is deposed, they'll see none of that cash.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-11-01 11:42pm

without us, Isreal would not exist

Im not sure I agree with that. I think they could handle themselves. They are pretty damn tough. I suppose without the military aid they might be hard pressed, but I still would not underestimate them.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-02 01:11am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Actually the Consitution states that Congress has the power to declare war, and the Congress passed the bill authorizing the President to attack Iraq if he sees fit. And as I see it, the coming war with Iraq is going to destroy a linchpin of trouble in a region that is vital not only for us but for our so called allies as well. If Iraq falls, and can be rebuilt with a democracy then a stabilizing preasence could be established in the ME. And as always IMHO.
Congress is going along because they are afraid of looking bad. Just like in Vietnam they dont do their job. Im sure some of the truely think we should go in and end Iraq. But you have to wonder why not Pakistan and N Korea.

As for destroying a linchpin of trouble, I saw right now the biggest problem is the middle east is not Iraq and has not been since we kicked him out of Kuwait.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the biggest problem in my opinion. Also dont forget the saudi arabia is the place where the 9-11 terrorists come from.

I just dont see Iraq as much of the threat. Lets face it the most of the entire region is a shit hole. And I dont think Iraq will develop into a democracy like Japan and Germany did. I could be wrong, but I dont think so.

Congress is going along with it because it is election year and they do not want to be kicked out no matter what party they are in. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the biggest problem because of all the support both sides get from other nations. We supply the Israeli's and people like Iraq supply the Palestinian's. Although a good argument can be made of the individual citizen's of various countries that fund both as well.

Needless to say the only so called democracy in the ME is Isreal and it is a decisive preasence not a stabilizing one and we get grief by association. By having a muslim democracy in the region would help considerably and who knows, it could be what tips Iran over too and that would be marvelous to the people of that region. The issue of SA is one I have trouble with. While we need them, they need use more and while I do think they are more our enemy than they are our friends there are easier ways to deal with them than a military solution.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-02 10:55am

ElBlanco wrote:Look, I do think it has to be done, but that has to be the first time I have ever heard "stabilizing presence" and "democracy" used in reference to the Middle East. If we do decide to knock off Hussien, it is going to be a long dragged out process. They do not have a great history of human rights in that area. The people just aren't familiar with it.

Not to mention they have no history of a true demoncracy. It's not just a matter of saying, you're a democracy now vote smart. America and other stable democratic nations have a tradition and faith in it that can't just be congured out of thin air. If we try that, more than likely we'll get some Islamo-fundies in charge, wiping out the little secular progress made in Iraq.

If we want to do it right, we'd be commited to Iraq for a long time. With the half ass job we're doing in Afganistan now, I don't think we should be even considering doing the same in Iraq.

And even worse, abandoning the war on terrorism unfinished is going to cost American lives. We need to get Bin Laden and crush Al-queda, or we'll prove ourselves the weak willed, short sighted idiots they think we are. We need to finish what we started rather than embarking on Bush's Crusade.

Sadly, now that we got the "terrorist state", the terrorists go back to being scary men in the shadows ocassionally arrested. We loose resolve and forget the importance of what happened.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-11-02 01:05pm

That was exactly my point about bringing democracy to the Middle East, but I disagree about us doing a "half assed job" in Afghanistan. Yes, the guy we put there is a Big Oil Buddy. However, he is only temporary while we help them build in ifastructure. In about a year and a half, we will set them up with a free election, open to everybody there. I am hoping we can avoid tampering or crying when our favorite candidate doesn't get elected, but only time will tell.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-02 02:13pm

ElBlanco wrote:That was exactly my point about bringing democracy to the Middle East, but I disagree about us doing a "half assed job" in Afghanistan. Yes, the guy we put there is a Big Oil Buddy. However, he is only temporary while we help them build in ifastructure. In about a year and a half, we will set them up with a free election, open to everybody there. I am hoping we can avoid tampering or crying when our favorite candidate doesn't get elected, but only time will tell.

I'm afraid you may have a bit too much faith in our government. Remember who put Fidel Castro in power? That's right, the good old Federal government of the United States of America. Who will do anything to keep their positions? That's right, the good old Federal government of the United States of America. Who specializes in half assed jobs like Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and the Gulf War? That's right, you guessed it, the good old Federal Government of the United States of America. They'll meddle, like every time in the last century.

ElBlanco · Post by **ElBlanco** » 2002-11-02 02:49pm

I would like to think we learned a lesson from Fidel. Also, most of your examples are more the fault of the UN than the US. Our fault was trusting them to do the fucking job.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-02 02:59pm

ElBlanco wrote:I would like to think we learned a lesson from Fidel. Also, most of your examples are more the fault of the UN than the US. Our fault was trusting them to do the fucking job.

But that seems tom be exactly what we are doing with Afghanistan. Trusting to the good of the "international community" to patch up the cracks in our ramshackle job. We're half assing it and hoping someone will fix it behind us; just like in those cases. And that's why I worry.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-11-02 06:52pm

We've half-assed it because it is politically and internationally unpopular to militarily govern and occupy the country before turning it into a democracy. You HAVE TO do that, or you'll never have a decent job, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan (and esp. Imperial Japan) had cultures to which individualism and democracy and equality were anathema. Only because we occupied and rebuilt the place could it support democracy. We have to occupy and govern the place for awhile or it will never work.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-02 09:57pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:We've half-assed it because it is politically and internationally unpopular to militarily govern and occupy the country before turning it into a democracy. You HAVE TO do that, or you'll never have a decent job, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan (and esp. Imperial Japan) had cultures to which individualism and democracy and equality were anathema. Only because we occupied and rebuilt the place could it support democracy. We have to occupy and govern the place for awhile or it will never work.

Unfortunately the majority of people don't believe that. The people who remember the occupation are in their 70s and 80s, and are dying off rapidly. I'm fortunate enough to know about a dozen WWII veterans, and before I met them I would have been trolling you. Now I agree, since I've heard their stories.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-11-03 12:58am

Stormbringer wrote:
ElBlanco wrote:Look, I do think it has to be done, but that has to be the first time I have ever heard "stabilizing presence" and "democracy" used in reference to the Middle East. If we do decide to knock off Hussien, it is going to be a long dragged out process. They do not have a great history of human rights in that area. The people just aren't familiar with it.
Not to mention they have no history of a true demoncracy. It's not just a matter of saying, you're a democracy now vote smart. America and other stable democratic nations have a tradition and faith in it that can't just be congured out of thin air. If we try that, more than likely we'll get some Islamo-fundies in charge, wiping out the little secular progress made in Iraq.

If we want to do it right, we'd be commited to Iraq for a long time. With the half ass job we're doing in Afganistan now, I don't think we should be even considering doing the same in Iraq.

And even worse, abandoning the war on terrorism unfinished is going to cost American lives. We need to get Bin Laden and crush Al-queda, or we'll prove ourselves the weak willed, short sighted idiots they think we are. We need to finish what we started rather than embarking on Bush's Crusade.

Sadly, now that we got the "terrorist state", the terrorists go back to being scary men in the shadows ocassionally arrested. We loose resolve and forget the importance of what happened.

No it won't be easy but it will be easier than going to war with the entire region. And we're not perfect(America)but we are trying to do something instead of sitting back and saying "oh well, nothing we can do. Damn."

And once again, I'm not nearly as scared of the disgruntled people with guns as I am with the disgruntled men with guns with backing from countries with military, industial, and diplomatic infrastructures.

Mr. B · Post by **Mr. B** » 2002-11-03 02:19am

I think that it is ironic tha he wants a smaller military designed for spec ops missions and also wants to invade iraq which will require an occupation force which is something the US military cannot do due to manpower constraints. Not to mention we would be fighting an actual military, not just an air campaign or Afg. type of operation.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-11-04 11:45am

Ultra wrote:
ElBlanco wrote:
The Clinton Syndicate...er administration is responsible for nearly emmasuclating (sp?) the military.
No, his administration was responsible for cutting down on wasteful military spending.

Ummm, NOT!! That jerk rammed enough cuts on us while I was in to make us pathetic!! The stuff I needed that I couldn't get...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is Rumsfeld an idiot?

Is Rumsfeld an idiot?

Re: I never looked too deeply into this but....