RUMSFELD MAY SOON REGRET HIS ARROGANCE TOWARD U.S. TROOPS

Mon Dec 13,12:41 PM ET Op/Ed - Georgie Ann Geyer
By Georgie Anne Geyer

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- By the early 1970s, after seven long and savage years of fighting in Vietnam, the phrase that came to characterize the pitiful hopelessness and absurdity of that conflict was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

Unbelievably, our secretary of defense has just given us the existential phrases for the Iraq (news - web sites) war: "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have ... not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

How could Donald Rumsfeld, a smart and savvy man despite his perverse fascination with conflict, possibly say such an insulting and arrogant thing to American soldiers? Is he really trying to tell them, as it surely sounded last Wednesday when he addressed American troops in Kuwait, that they are not the Army he wanted, but he had to put up with them?

Well, just maybe, if the cavalier attitude of the civilians in this administration toward American troops continues, there will come a time when our soldiers will not put up with THEM! Perhaps that was beginning last week in Kuwait.

To briefly review, one soldier in Kuwait, Spc. Thomas Wilson, a member of the Tennessee National Guard, confronted "Rummie" with a pointed question. "We've had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we've always staged here out of Kuwait," he said. "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles, and why don't we have those resources readily available to us?

"We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal ... that has already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat."

Rumsfeld then made his incredible comment, pointing out to any rational person the degrees to which this administration is not so much lacking battlefield intelligence but basic human instinct. Even President Bush (news - web sites), whose own responses to the troops, despite his melodramatic public "emotion," are cool and distant, seemed to realize that Rumsfeld had gone too far.

"If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country," he said from Washington, "I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question." (At this point, some of would like to ask him the question of why, as commander in chief, he hasn't asked it himself?).

Then it was revealed that the question had been worked out in concert with a journalist covering the troops, Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press -- and this fact was somehow meant to discredit the whole encounter. Sorry about that! Such exchanges of ideas -- and especially of complaints -- are not only part of the war scene, they are central and appropriate to it.

But let us not forget the context of Rumsfeld's words. This is Rumsfeld's war -- not America's, but his. He and his pugnacious neocon cohorts -- all of them still reigning in the Pentagon (news - web sites), and none of whom having ever served in the military -- ran all around the uniformed military's and the State Department's warnings about this war. They got exactly what they asked for: an adventure, a thoroughly unnecessary "war of choice," and a growing disaster-in-the-making.

Senators Joseph Biden Jr. and Chuck Hagel just returned from Iraq, saying that not one American general said we were winning. Other warnings are the same. Rumsfeld's answer to everything is to train Iraqi forces to take the place of ours (perhaps because we, poor guys, only have "the Army we have"), but they are falling apart in many Iraqi cities.

And then Rumsfeld made things even worse. Responding to questions as to why he did not even remotely anticipate these intense "insurgencies," he answered blithely: "I don't think anyone would say that the intelligence left anyone with the impression that you'd be in the degree of insurgency you're in today." No look at Iraqi history, no attempt to match ambition to potential, no common sense --and surely no apologies!

You can see the anger beginning to build in the armed forces, with the "stop-loss" policies that force men and women to stay in uniform long after their terms are over, with the callousness about the armor, with the ludicrous analysis by the civilians in the Pentagon of what Iraq and its history were really like.

Now his unfortunate quote will go down in history to show how much he and his group, most of them remote and self-interested intellectuals, look at battlefield soldiers as chess pieces at their disposal. In the end, they care about nothing except their game.

oh get off it echo. you know damn well he wasn't talking about the troops. even in the army your own commanders tell you the same thing. "you fight with what you got". Is that an insult to the troops? no. it means make do, take care of your stuff. You don't get issued all new equipment when the war starts, you go to war with what you have. Why does the left insist on creating rifts within the military? I heard an interesting theory the other day as to why the left doesn't want the military to be successful. it went like this:

the left doesn't like the use of force. They see it as wrong. any use of force that actually does good validates the use of force as a way to solve problems. obviously they can not have that, or no one would need them. So, it is in their interest to see our military fail so their ideas and beliefs still have validity. If you go your whole life saying war doesn't solve anything, and the only way to solve problems is with dialogue and summits, how is it going to look if a use of force solves a problem?

Originally posted by Travh20
the left doesn't like the use of force. They see it as wrong. any use of force that actually does good validates the use of force as a way to solve problems. obviously they can not have that, or no one would need them. So, it is in their interest to see our military fail so their ideas and beliefs still have validity. If you go your whole life saying war doesn't solve anything, and the only way to solve problems is with dialogue and summits, how is it going to look if a use of force solves a problem?

Just goes to show you how little you neocons understand us. We have nothing against the use of force when it is necessary.

hey, its just a theory, if it hit a little to close to home its not my fault

The use of force is the domain of animals. Once Humans evolve to a certain point we might find a way to distribute resources without fighting to the death.

(Oh, you CONSERVATIVES don't believe in Evolution.)

Originally posted by Ed Blank
(Oh, you CONSERVATIVES don't believe in Evolution.)
Well, that's pretty condescending, but coming from a self-avowed, "rock it scientist", I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Now why don't you be a real trendsetter and show us how to distribute resources without conflict, and I'll apologize for thinking you're an idealistic fool.

Ya know what, I just realized...you're no scientist; you're a "scientest". Just what in the hell does a "scientest" do? Out of curiosity, is it someone who makes blanket assertions about what conservatives believe in?

Because I'm in the dark here, please do me the favor of enlightening me...

Thanks -

Originally posted by Ed Blank
The use of force is the domain of animals. Once Humans evolve to a certain point we might find a way to distribute resources without fighting to the death.

(Oh, you CONSERVATIVES don't believe in Evolution.)

this statement goes a long way into proving the theory correct. If force is used successfully, Ed blank here would look like a mo-ron

Originally posted by Echo2
RUMSFELD MAY SOON REGRET HIS ARROGANCE TOWARD U.S. TROOPS

Nah.

Never happen.

The Conservative personality has a pathological aversion to admitting mistakes or wrongdoing.

freethinker, if I tell you you are wrong, will you turn around and say you are wrong? Just because your opposition thinks your wrong doesnt mean you are. thats why they are called opposition, becasue they dont agree with you. freaking arrogant liberals think everything they say or think is as good as gods word. IF you tell someone he is wrong or made a mistake they better damn well start apologizing!!

Originally posted by Travh20
freaking arrogant liberals think everything they say or think is as good as gods word.

I think you are confusing us with herr bush.

uh no echo, bush knows he is not god.

I have a joke for you.

Whats the difference between echo and god?

God doesnt think he is echo :D

Originally posted by Ed Blank
The use of force is the domain of animals. Once Humans evolve to a certain point we might find a way to distribute resources without fighting to the death.

(Oh, you CONSERVATIVES don't believe in Evolution.)

I'm not sure about this evolution thing... I heard Darwin was adopted.

LOL!!

Originally posted by Echo2
I think you are confusing us with herr bush.

Echo, I assume you mean "herr" to be an insult. "Gentleman or Mr." is not insulting. Unless this is yet another Nazi reference. Get some new material

she trys to be clever with the nazi references, unfortunately she comes off looking like an idiot

If i am wrong and i know (in that situation) that i am wrong, then i will apologize, but if i know that i am right (research and stuff) then you will get no apology.

she trys to be clever with the nazi references, unfortunately she comes off looking like an idiot

No, it shows she uses recycled insults, nothing more. I know of plenty of times you have come out looking like a moron on some posts (well, the majority), but then again everyone in their life will look like a moron at some point.

but then again everyone in their life will look like a moron at some point.
Yeah, but some people have a propensity to do it more often than not.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yeah, but some people have a propensity to do it more often than not.

Yeah, too true, but then there are people are stupid naturally, and that can't be helped.

NG down 30% BWAhahahahahaha ... wonder why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/politics/17reserves.html?hp&ex=1103346000&en=ec0828fe89a6661d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
NG down 30% BWAhahahahahaha ...

Dop
Why the hell does this surprise anyone? Of course enrollment is down, and why wouldn't it be? The people who sign up know they aren't going to get a check for a meaningless weekends work anymore, their asses are going to get shipped overseas, so it should be of absolutely NO surprise that they're going to hesitate when contemplating service time. Is this supposed to be news???

I think that the actual "news" is that people are putting their moral and ethical beliefs BEFORE their patriotism. Something I don't believe some people understand.

Some people on this board have called others treasonous and/or unpatriotic because they speak out against the Iraqi war. When in actuality, their speaking out has nothing to do with lack of patriotism and everything to do with their moral code. If you truly believe something is wrong and immoral, you don't do it. PERIOD. No matter what kind of trouble you get into with the government or military or anyone else. If a person fails to follow their inner moral code then they are nothing.

Above all else, ones moral code must come first.

Patriotic Americans who believe this is a righteous war will continue to join. Patriotic people who feel this war is immoral will not join.

The Marine Corps has a code: God, country, corps. Notice that god comes BEFORE country. God is a euphemism for morality.

Moral code, my ass. This country has no moral code, and that has NOTHING to do with our current Commander in Chief or the Iraqi war, and everything to do with the pestilence that is newfound liberalism. Since when did you ever get the idea that you know better than the government? Is it because you're privy to more information? Perhaps, because you're "smarter" than George Bush? Maybe, it's because you're above war, and the Dali lama visited you in a dream while telling you that we don't have to follow any form of patriotism if it flies in the face of half-baked, ill-informed, preconceived morality. :rolleyes:

Whatever...

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Moral code, my ass. This country has no moral code, and that has NOTHING to do with our current Commander in Chief or the Iraqi war, and everything to do with the pestilence that is newfound liberalism. Since when did you ever get the idea that you know better than the government? Is it because you're privy to more information? Perhaps, because you're "smarter" than George Bush? Maybe, it's because you're above war, and the Dali lama visited you in a dream while telling you that we don't have to follow any form of patriotism if it flies in the face of half-baked, ill-informed, preconceived morality. :rolleyes:

Whatever...

It isn't about the government knowing more or less or who is in office or who is smarter. Prae - if you know in your heart that something is wrong, you don't do it. Period.

When you say "half-baked, ill-informed, preconceived morality", you sound like a liberal ranting against evangelism.

Just because you do not agree with my sense of right and wrong does not make mine wrong. Just as when I don't agree with your sense of right and wrong it doesn't make yours wrong.

Are you trying to tell me to put aside my moral beliefs and ethics and just do what the government tells me because I should? That sounds like something many germans did in WW2.

I could no sooner go against my moral code than you could go against yours. What would we be if we didn't stand up for what we believed in?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
NG down 30% BWAhahahahahaha ... wonder why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/politics/17reserves.html?hp&ex=1103346000&en=ec0828fe89a6661d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Dop

dop never fails to reinforce the idea that whats bad for america is good for the left wing american jerks. they are more then willing to lose a war to get a cheap jab in or an "I told you so" agaisnt old Dubya. ya, great prioritys guys. les turn all of our hostility and hatred inwards. no wonde toy lost the elections, again.

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, great prioritys guys. lets turn all of our hostility and hatred inwards.

We are forced to by the presence of an infection, a despicable cancer called "extreme Right Conservatism" that is destroying us from within.

________________________________

We fight a madness, a diseased value system, a spreading cancer. That its main symbol and proponent, Bush, is such a virulent embodiment of its every awful detail, is perhaps a blessing; for the rest of the world it seems to have helped make the situation clear, and as his foundation of lies continue to be exposed, perhaps this will become clear here at home too.

Originally posted by Echo2
It isn't about the government knowing more or less or who is in office or who is smarter. Prae - if you know in your heart that something is wrong, you don't do it. Period.

I hate to break it to you, but THIS GOVERNMENT HASN'T EVER GIVEN YOU THAT RIGHT. You're an American citizen, so you'll do what the fuck you're told to. This government gives you a voice with an election, not because you have moral qualms over the conflict in Iraq. BIG goddamned difference. I'm not arguing that you have to like it, but you'd better comply if they ask for your assistance. It's a simple thing: you voted, and lost, so deal with it. You're an American, now do your part. (I don't mean you, specifically, so don't take it as such. I'm talking about all the pricks that say, "I'll never fight for this country because I don't believe in what we're doing". Don't you see that making that choice isn't an option??? Its called fucking treason. PERIOD. There IS NO GREY AREA HERE.)

If this government told you to kill everyone in your state over 50 would you do it? If they told you to put arsnic in the Canadians water supply would you do it? KWould you consider it treason to not do it? Geese Prae, government is an institution. Would you really turn over your free will and moral beliefs to an instition?

If so, I pity you and if I was a religious person I would pray for your soul. Ignoring your moral compass and purposely doing wrong because a government tells you to is just plain wrong.

You fail to understand that the government isn't asking you to do those things, and the fact that you'd even parallel those requests with the war in Iraq speaks volumes about your predisposition.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You're an American citizen, so you'll do what the fuck you're told to.......I'm not arguing that you have to like it, but you'd better comply if they ask for your assistance. Don't you see that making that choice isn't an option??? Its called fucking treason. PERIOD. There IS NO GREY AREA HERE.)

Now I am confused. From the statements you make, it would be treasonous to not do ANYTHING the government tells me too. That is why I used those examples. You yourself say there is no grey area. So if they did tell you to contaminate a countries water supply "you don't have to like it, but you'd better comply". Those were your words.

To just automatically do whatever your government tells you to is wrong. The world learned that lesson from Germany. Many good people did what they were told to do because it was treason not to. They allowed their fear of government or their patriotism to take power over their moral compass.

Would you torture someone if the government told you to?

Originally posted by Echo2
Now I am confused. From the statements you make, it would be treasonous to not do ANYTHING the government tells me too. That is why I used those examples. You yourself say there is no grey area. So if they did tell you to contaminate a countries water supply "you don't have to like it, but you'd better comply". Those were your words.

To just automatically do whatever your government tells you to is wrong. The world learned that lesson from Germany. Many good people did what they were told to do because it was treason not to. They allowed their fear of government or their patriotism to take power over their moral compass.

Would you torture someone if the government told you to?

Our government isn't going to tell you to contaminate someone’s water supply, Echo. C'mon, get real...

And if I were a soldier set out to acquire information on the location of my enemies and their strongholds, then yes, I'd torture an enemy captive in order to extract that data. Now let me ask you a question: do you think that makes me heartless or just good at my job? Don't forget, this is reality, not Geneva.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Our government isn't going to tell you to contaminate someone’s water supply, Echo. C'mon, get real...

Our government (actually it's representatives in the form of superior officers) told troops in vietnam to invade and destroy villages that had nothing but women, children, chickens and pigs in them. Do you remember that? They killed every living thing from the chickens on up and then burned the villages down.

Our government (actually it's representatives in the form of superior officers) told those troops in Iraq to torture those prisoners. And now they are trying those troops for war crimes to protect their image.

If those troops had followed their moral compass I doubt they would have done those things. But they were afraid. Afraid of what their government and it's representatives would do to them if they didn't do what they were told.

And if I were a soldier set out to acquire information on the location of my enemies and their strongholds, then yes, I'd torture an enemy captive in order to extract that data. Now let me ask you a question: do you think that makes me heartless or just good at my job? Don't forget, this is reality, not Geneva. [/QUOTE]

I can't say whether that makes you heartless or not. What I can say is that you either have a very low moral compass to begin with or you have turned what morality you do have over to an instituion in the form of a government.

It may work for you, but I cannot turn off my morality and humanity in the name of anything, not even my government.

So echo, if you could save all of humanity from worldwide destruction by torturing some evil dictator, you wouldn't do it?

Not if here government told her to.

No I would not. I would not torture someone for any reaon.


In my world if something is wrong, it is wrong. Not just on Tuesdays or when the sun shines or if it will make things easier for me. Wrong is wrong. No excuses, conditions, explanations or circumstances can change that.

I doubt any a christian who is concerned about his soul would either.

If I had the chance to rid the planet of a heinous criminal, sexual deviant, or any plainly evil individual, I'd be taking bets on whether or not I could score a head shot from 100 yards out with an open sighted rifle in high winds. (I'd at least try to make it interesting...)