Is Rumsfeld Right ?

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
They have been born into it and their anger is largely a fabrication of their religious zealots to suit their own purpose. It's passed down hate. It's the same type of traditional hate that we would see in the deep American south in the late 19th century. There was no real reason for it. It was merely a sentiment passed on and the result was a manifestation of societal (perhaps civilizational?) failure.

This is common throughout history. Think back to Roman Catholicism in history and it's willingness to pervert events to manifest hate. Think about the hatred of the Arab world around Iran today. There was no crime committed against Arabs worthy of such religious fervor and desperation. It is all designed to further Muslim power over Muslims and we are a scapegoat.

Focus on those "evil" zionists in Israel is another scapegoat.

You are 100% absolutely right on this point. I don't believe in "scapegoating". I don't believe in blaming the entire Muslim culture. I don't believe in blaming the Great Satan America. Most of the Muslim culture is about peaceful, caring individuals that abhor violence. America is not a great Satan, although we have our share of devils. Some happened to be members of our military. But just like Cherokee has said, when we find them, we deal with them. Were a doer nation. When we see (and agree) on a problem, we do something about it. Our problems usually arise on how we solve that problem.

Which brings me back to the examples you just stated. If you look back in history, you will see that when those problems were dealt with through violence, they got worse. But when they were dealt with through education, they got better. A well informed populace is always a good thing. No matter what religious organization it is, Catholic, Islamic, Satanic, etc, they all try to control thought. Education is the key. We educate people, then let them decide for themselves. America is about the right to self determination. But that doesn't do much, if the citizenry has been dumbed down. Or like the problem they have in Iran where you have fundamental problems in the educational system.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
If Al-Queda were to disappear today, another terrorist organization and charismatic leader would rise to the occassion for their "God." Al-Queda is no where near the only terrorist organization. These organizations are created for a sole purpose - murder and destruction. They don't exist to create and they don't exist to bring peace to the Muslim world. They are merely a means for the desperate to find "salvation."

Sad, but true.

 

[Stinger]

The same Rumsfeld who said our mission in Iraq would be done in six months at the latest?

With a new Iraqi government set up and the country secure? I'd like to see that quote please.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Zarqawi had Kurdish support and I've seen no evidence that he was "fighting the enemies of Saddam in Kurdistan".

Zarqawi was in Kurdistan to fight along side Ansar al-Islam against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan which is allied with the United States and an enemy of Saddam Hussein, though their goals were different Saddam and Zarqawi had the same enemy that's why he was given passage to a Baghdad hospital.

links?

A link to over 55,000 documents captured after the invasion of Iraq? Well they were released on the internet for translation, so go find them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
A link to over 55,000 documents captured after the invasion of Iraq? Well they were released on the internet for translation, so go find them.

Is that all you got? A questionable document that wasn't authenticated by the people that released it. Don't you have any corroborating evidence that would give your claims more validity. Scratch that. That would give your claims "any validity!"

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
With a new Iraqi government set up and the country secure?

With a new Iraqi puppet government set up inside a fortress and the country se____ WHAT!

Are you on acid?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

With a new Iraqi puppet government set up inside a fortress and the country se____ WHAT!

Are you on acid?

So the Iraqi's Democratically elected a puppet government in free and fair elections? I really wish this were a puppet government then they wouldn't have been able to keep their oil natinalized and I wouldn't still be paying $3.00 a gallon for gas.

 

[MSgt]

So does Bush.

And Bush believes that slaughtering civilians is serving said "God?" Let's try to be a little more intelligent in our discussions. There are plenty of servicemen that believe in "God" as well. This doesn't mean that they are quoting scriptures and praising God as they bath in civilian blood. It also doesn't mean that American service men are prepared to slaughter their own people to cling to barbaric traditions of religion.

 

[MSgt]

Dang! They have problems with the "religious right" in their country too?

Again....let's try to be a little more intelligent in our discussions. The religious right in America is quite content with lobbying and passing out pamplets. This is hardly the course of action in the Middle East. The huge difference is the government and the civilization.


"Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Tuesday for a purge of liberal and secular teachers from the country's universities, urging students to return to 1980s-style radicalism."

Iran retired dozens of liberal university professors and teachers earlier this year. And last November, Ahmadinejad's administration for the first time named a cleric to head the country's oldest institution of higher education, Tehran University, despite protests by students.

Ahmadinejad's aim appears to be installing a new generation of rulers who will revive the fundamentalist goals pursued in the 1980s under the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran. Shortly after the revolution, Iran fired hundreds of liberal and leftist university teachers and expelled numerous students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060905/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_university_purge_5

Keep in mind, that this is only Iran. They are merely catching up with Arabs in other parts of the Middle East. Like I've said...the religious right and the Radical fundamentalist in the Middle East define the culture and civilization. The best and quickest way to convince the people that they need "God" for protection is to continue the preachings against the "Great Satan." This means, that it doesn't matter what we do. We could find Bin Ladden tomorrow and kill him and thousands of Muslims will look to seek revenge. We could kill a terrorist in Pakistan and kill a few civilians in the process and thousands of Muslims will want revenge and build further hate around it. We could do absolutely nothing and thousands of Muslims will hear the preachings of their religious leaders about how the "soldiers of Allah" are victorious against his enemy and those Muslims will seek to join the winning effort. This is what we are up against.

 

[MSgt]

You are 100% absolutely right on this point. I don't believe in "scapegoating". I don't believe in blaming the entire Muslim culture. I don't believe in blaming the Great Satan America. Most of the Muslim culture is about peaceful, caring individuals that abhor violence. America is not a great Satan, although we have our share of devils. Some happened to be members of our military. But just like Cherokee has said, when we find them, we deal with them. Were a doer nation. When we see (and agree) on a problem, we do something about it. Our problems usually arise on how we solve that problem.

Which brings me back to the examples you just stated. If you look back in history, you will see that when those problems were dealt with through violence, they got worse. But when they were dealt with through education, they got better. A well informed populace is always a good thing. No matter what religious organization it is, Catholic, Islamic, Satanic, etc, they all try to control thought. Education is the key. We educate people, then let them decide for themselves. America is about the right to self determination. But that doesn't do much, if the citizenry has been dumbed down. Or like the problem they have in Iran where you have fundamental problems in the educational system.

However, you are failing to recognize that the solutions to these problems came from within. There is no Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. in the Muslim world. If there was...he would just be killed. Instead they give rise to the Osamas and Khomeinis. Their civilization is very much defined by the Radical and as the world progresses, they cling tighter and gain strength. Their civilization is not defined by "most of the Muslim culture." We do not have the luxury of waiting for them to fix themselves as they send terrorist to our shores, embassies, U.S. ships and as their Radical leaders defy the world in their quest for the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

With a new Iraqi government set up and the country secure? I'd like to see that quote please.

Why would you like to see it? Is there any possibility that it'd change your mind? Here're a few examples

He discusses how long the conflict will last. Is the conflict in Iraq over yet? When the conflict is over we will have a drawndown to a residual force.
Have we drawn down to a "residual" force yet?

Secretary Rumsfeld TownHall Meeting At Aviano Air Base
Friday, February 7, 2003

Rumsfeld: Well -- (laughter) -- let me say this about that. (Laughter.) It is highly unlikely that we would go to a full mobilization. ...

And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

So I would see this buildup going up, lasting for a period, and the last choice is war, but if that is necessary, a period where that takes place and then a drawdown. And you would find people moving back out and some residual number staying there, with the -- undoubtedly the forces of many other nations.
​

Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War
Nov. 15, 2002

There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.

He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq's armed forces are weaker.

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said. "It won't be a World War III."
​

Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks on ABC "This Week with George Stephanopoulos"
Sunday, March 30, 2003

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you think we'll still be fighting in Iraq six months from now?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness, you know, I've never -- we've never had a timetable. We've always said it could be days, weeks, or months and we don't know. And I don't think you need a timetable. What you really need to know is it's going to end and it's going to end with the Iraqi people liberated and that regime will be gone.
​

Is there still fighting in Iraq?

The word "years" is conspicuous in its absence.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Saddam ... collaborating with AQ?

And what exactly was that collaboration again? Oh yeah, there was an anti-Western recording that was played on Iraqi radio.

I suppose there're some folks who might find this to be something other than example of Hussein's willingness to stick his neck out by being involved with an aQ attack on the US.

But there probably the same folks who try to confuse issues by making a distinction between style and substance, words and action. You know, the kinds of folks I'm talking about.

They prob'ly point to Hussein's established history of deterrability. But facts and history aren't really the point now are they? Hussein allowed some anti-Western aQ endorsed rrecording to be aired on the radio. Facts be damned! This clearly shows that Hussein was willing to risk 'national obliteration' by being involved in an aQ attack on the US.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And what exactly was that collaboration again? Oh yeah, there was an anti-Western recording that was played on Iraqi radio.

I suppose there're some folks who might find this to be something other than example of Hussein's willingness to stick his neck out by being involved with an aQ attack on the US.

But there probably the same folks who try to confuse issues by making a distinction between style and substance, words and action. You know, the kinds of folks I'm talking about.

They prob'ly point to Hussein's established history of deterrability. But facts and history aren't really the point now are they? Hussein allowed some anti-Western aQ endorsed rrecording to be aired on the radio. Facts be damned! This clearly shows that Hussein was willing to risk 'national obliteration' by being involved in an aQ attack on the US.

So why was the VX found in the AQ weapons lab in the Sudan the exact same formula of the Iraqi's?

Why was Zarqawi given safe passage to a Baghdad hospital?

Why does the DOCEX release confim that there were many collaborations between Saddam and AQ?

And why does 9-11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey now say that the Commission underestimated the collaborative relationship?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
Again....let's try to be a little more intelligent in our discussions. The religious right in America is quite content with lobbying and passing out pamplets. This is hardly the course of action in the Middle East. The huge difference is the government and the civilization.

We can agree here. I think one of our best exports is the way we handle dispute resolution within our opposing factions in this country. I'd say the majority of the time, we handle our disputes with heated, but civil, discoarse. There are exceptions. But no civil wars.

That's how we can lead.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Zarqawi was in Kurdistan to fight along side Ansar al-Islam against the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan which is allied with the United States and an enemy of Saddam Hussein, though their goals were different Saddam and Zarqawi had the same enemy that's why he was given passage to a Baghdad hospital.

Even if that is true, and you have yet to provide proof of that, there was nothing Saddam could have done to get rid of Zarqawi anyway because the Kurdish territories were protected by the United States, Britain, and even France for a time. It also has yet to be prooven that Saddam even knew that Zarqawi was being treated at that hospital let alone that he played a direct role in his presence there.

A link to over 55,000 documents captured after the invasion of Iraq? Well they were released on the internet for translation, so go find them.

The burden of proof is on you since you made the claim. Provide a link to them and prefferebly directly to where they are on the DOD's website instead of a partisan right wing hack website.

 

[dragonslayer]

yes Rumsfelt is right. he is a right wing, procorporate fascist, who love to have soldiers die on his orders.

 

[MSgt]

yes Rumsfelt is right. he is a right wing, procorporate fascist, who love to have soldiers die on his orders.

Tsk tsk. Meaningful discussion interrupted by senseless rants. It never fails. Someone always does it.

 

[aps]

“Iraq is not overwhelmed by foreign terrorists,” said the congressman John Murtha in succinct rebuttal to the president’s speech. “It is overwhelmed by Iraqis fighting Iraqis.” And with Americans caught in the middle. If we owe anything to those who died on 9/11, it is that we not forget how the administration diverted our blood and treasure from the battle against bin Laden and other stateless Islamic terrorists, fascist or whatever, to this quagmire in a country that did not attack us on 9/11. The number of American dead in Iraq — now more than 2,600 — is inexorably approaching the death toll of that Tuesday morning five years ago.

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/opinion/03rich.html

What I find interesting is that there we are in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. I believe in July alone, more than 3000 Iraqis were killed. Thus, the country we are supposedly helping is having their own September 11th on almost a monthly basis. :roll:

 

[ptsdkid]

What I find interesting is that there we are in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. I believe in July alone, more than 3000 Iraqis were killed. Thus, the country we are supposedly helping is having their own September 11th on almost a monthly basis. :roll:

***Its called a war, Aps. Those tens of thousands pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands if not millions that felt the sting of Saddam's sword. Would you be as concerned if those tens of thousands dead were Americans here on our soil? Liberals generally have shown more concern for foreigners then they do their own.

 

[aps]

***Its called a war, Aps. Those tens of thousands pale in comparison to the hundreds of thousands if not millions that felt the sting of Saddam's sword. Would you be as concerned if those tens of thousands dead were Americans here on our soil? Liberals generally have shown more concern for foreigners then they do their own.

It's called an unnecessary war. I am guessing more Iraqis have died since we invaded Iraq than during the years and years that Saddam ruled the country. You are exaggerating Saddam's "sting." There is no way that "millions" of Iraqis were victims. Saddam is/was in no way close to Hitler. I am a liberal who cares more about Americans than people from other countries.

Do you care to address Murtha's point about how the war in Iraq involves Iraqis fighting Iraqis. Isn't that indicative of a civil war? What are we accomplishing there?

 

[MSgt]

It's called an unnecessary war. I am guessing more Iraqis have died since we invaded Iraq than during the years and years that Saddam ruled the country. You are exaggerating Saddam's "sting." There is no way that "millions" of Iraqis were victims. Saddam is/was in no way close to Hitler. I am a liberal who cares more about Americans than people from other countries.

Do you care to address Murtha's point about how the war in Iraq involves Iraqis fighting Iraqis. Isn't that indicative of a civil war? What are we accomplishing there?

Hitler defined for us the evils that a human monsters will celebrate. Because of his extreme evils upon humanity, it is hard for some to imagine that other men can and do execute their own brand of evil upon humanity. Just because Saddam didn't herd his fellow Muslims into ovens doesn't mean that he didn't abuse millions and millions of Shi'ites and Kurds.

A "civil war" where Sunni Islamic Radicals are the victor is not in the best interest of Americans. Even the interest of those Americans in uniform who sit in embassies that will be waiting for Al-Queda or some other Islamic terrorist organization to gather strength from the creation of another base.

When the Iraqi government, which is trying to solidify a western influenced democracy at the protection of a functioning and strong Iraqi military, is prepared to defend itself, then Americans will leave.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So why was the VX found in the AQ weapons lab in the Sudan the exact same formula of the Iraqi's?

Why was Zarqawi given safe passage to a Baghdad hospital?

Why does the DOCEX release confim that there were many collaborations between Saddam and AQ?

And why does 9-11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey now say that the Commission underestimated the collaborative relationship?

How bout you start a thread with these four points in the OP?

For each point, you could provide a two parts,
a) direct quotations from document you got your info, and,
b) what it is you think the quotes mean


I'd be more than delighted to discuss these things with you there.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

How bout you start a thread with these four points in the OP?

For each point, you could provide a two parts,
a) direct quotations from document you got your info, and,
b) what it is you think the quotes mean


I'd be more than delighted to discuss these things with you there.

So in other words you won't comment on these four points that are well known fact and which I've already gone over time and time again on this forum.

 

[akyron]

It's called an unnecessary war. I am guessing more Iraqis have died since we invaded Iraq than during the years and years that Saddam ruled the country.

Just the Iran-Iraq war dropped at least a million people.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So in other words you won't comment on these four points that are well known fact and which I've already gone over time and time again on this forum.

I'm not sure how any of that means anything remotely related to what you said you think I said.
I said that these items are so important that they deserve their own thread. Then I said that I'd be "more than delighted to discuss these things."


AFAICT, I'd be more than delighted to discuss these things. These things deserve their own thread.