| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fish
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 2412
Location: Netherlands
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
STEED
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 1671
Location: England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepSix
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Location: DB22
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | President Bush, brushing aside an intensifying clamor among retired military commanders for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, said Friday his defense secretary enjoys his full support and that Rumsfeld's leadership of the Pentagon was "exactly what is needed at this critical period." |
(from the article)
 - Because I'm thinking of what Bush said to Michael Brown (FEMA director), a few days before he booted him:
| Quote: | | "You're doing a great job, Brownie." |
Rumsfeld must be truly inspired by getting a vote of confidence from Bush! 
Please note: the foregoing neither expresses nor implies approval or condemnation of anybody. Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Avon Lady
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 3267
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think Rumsfeld has proven to be the greatest of military strategists but I have no idea if that justifies demanding his resignation.
Anyone have a list of potential replacements? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCIP
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3224
Location: Ottawa, Canada [Grid BA7311]
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rumsfield isn't the brightest guy, either (second only to W in the number of gaffes he made in his time). But yea, under the current administration - I don't see a replacement for him. Time will tell; frankly, I don't think kicking off Rumsfield now would mean much of anything outside of partisan politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 1262
Location: NY USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
my sentiments exactly DeepSix...
good call...
--Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Takeda Shingen
Joined: 14 Mar 2001
Posts: 841
Location: Allentown, Pa, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CCIP wrote: | | Rumsfield isn't the brightest guy, either (second only to W in the number of gaffes he made in his time). But yea, under the current administration - I don't see a replacement for him. Time will tell; frankly, I don't think kicking off Rumsfield now would mean much of anything outside of partisan politics. |
That is the truth. Rumsfeld would most likely be replaced by either a Rumsfeld clone or an equally inadequate official (just reference this administration's appointments for examples). We're stuck with the Defense Department's strategem and policies until 2009. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
August
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 1296
Location: Rhode Island
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Truth be told is that the Generals have always hated Rumsfeld because he wanted to ditch traditional command and mission baliwicks in favor of a leaner, more capable and effective fighting force and was willing to fire any brass that wouldn't get with the program.
That made him a lot of enemies which the political opponents of the administration are only too eager to use to mudrake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybird
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 4131
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Point his: his new ideas failed with flying colours.
Zinni is no unknown in Germany, some of his essays he has published in American newspapers, have been translated for German ones as well. For a military he is a very unorthodox and flexible thinker, I got the impression, and far from being prisoner to old dogmas. I also got the impression that he knows what he is talking about. Rumsfeld's ideas were a parade of overhyped optimism lacking sense of realism. Like the intel community once thought that electronics and satellites could replace manpower (agents) on the ground, he thought technology could compensate for lacking numbers. He wanted to have an army that with the same ressources and manpower is capable of doing so much more to fulfill the neocon's goals for a new American world. I also think he is a cynic towards the fates of those he commands, John Smith and Betty Brown on the ground. Political responsebility? The only thing that could happen to him is that he gets fired, with a nice pension and no sorrows at all. It is the others that have to risk their lives, and bear the real responsebility.
Such guys make me sick. Giving commands, but not taking care that these commands decide over life and death of those they command. One could be cautionous a general, and still act aggressively. Rumsfeld only does the latter, but has no mind to understand the first. No balance, no stand, no team spirit. Court martial him. At least then he would face his responsebility. Bloody damn #?&%§$?...!!!
I cannot imagine how anyone could perform worse than Rumsfeld did. All vital assessements he made - were wrong. You cannot get a score below zero, so to replace him holds little risks, but only promises for things getting better - no guarantee, but a chance. If he is not replaced, then it is because of the upcoming internal elections. His replacement would signal some kind of imperfection of the Republicans, that they fear would be interpreted as "weakness". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mog
Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Posts: 322
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since his resignation Colin Powell has spoken about how his State Department had drawn up detailed plans on how to manage Iraq after Saddam Hussein had been deposed, but they were thrown out by Bush and Rumsfeld in favour of Rumsfeld's strategy.
We now know that Rumsfeld's plan was to sit back and watch the grateful Iraqis shower their liberators with flowers and love. The various tribes were to set aside their centuries old differences and go about building a nice pro-America capitalist democracy.
I can't help but wonder how Iraq might have turned out if things weren't being run by a man living in a fantasy world. There's not much point in removing him now, as the damage has already been done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
August
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
Posts: 1296
Location: Rhode Island
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Skybird wrote: | Point his: his new ideas failed with flying colours.
Zinni is no unknown in Germany, some of his essays he has published in American newspapers, have been translated for German ones as well. For a military he is a very unorthodox and flexible thinker, I got the impression, and far from being prisoner to old dogmas. I also got the impression that he knows what he is talking about. Rumsfeld's ideas were a parade of overhyped optimism lacking sense of realism. Like the intel community once thought that electronics and satellites could replace manpower (agents) on the ground, he thought technology could compensate for lacking numbers. He wanted to have an army that with the same ressources and manpower is capable of doing so much more to fulfill the neocon's goals for a new American world. I also think he is a cynic towards the fates of those he commands, John Smith and Betty Brown on the ground. Political responsebility? The only thing that could happen to him is that he gets fired, with a nice pension and no sorrows at all. It is the others that have to risk their lives, and bear the real responsebility.
Such guys make me sick. Giving commands, but not taking care that these commands decide over life and death of those they command. One could be cautionous a general, and still act aggressively. Rumsfeld only does the latter, but has no mind to understand the first. No balance, no stand, no team spirit. Court martial him. At least then he would face his responsebility. Bloody damn #?&%§$?...!!!
I cannot imagine how anyone could perform worse than Rumsfeld did. All vital assessements he made - were wrong. You cannot get a score below zero, so to replace him holds little risks, but only promises for things getting better - no guarantee, but a chance. If he is not replaced, then it is because of the upcoming internal elections. His replacement would signal some kind of imperfection of the Republicans, that they fear would be interpreted as "weakness". |
There are just so many things wrong with the above that it'd take too much time to counter them all. Maybe later. For now suffice to say Zinni's biggest fan is Zinni. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybird
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 4131
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mog wrote: | Since his resignation Colin Powell has spoken about how his State Department had drawn up detailed plans on how to manage Iraq after Saddam Hussein had been deposed, but they were thrown out by Bush and Rumsfeld in favour of Rumsfeld's strategy.
We now know that Rumsfeld's plan was to sit back and watch the grateful Iraqis shower their liberators with flowers and love. The various tribes were to set aside their centuries old differences and go about building a nice pro-America capitalist democracy.
I can't help but wonder how Iraq might have turned out if things weren't being run by a man living in a fantasy world. There's not much point in removing him now, as the damage has already been done. |
He admitted in an interview, word by word, that he "had been surprised by the intensity and duration of violance" after Saddam'S fall. This speaks volumes. If so many people all over the world saw exactly these consequences in crystal-clear vision, and warned of them, and he did not see it, and did not listen to these people's warnings, and had wiped all alternative planning to his "plan" (what plan?) off the table, then this definetely is no indication for his competence and foresight and understanding of the realities at location. Civilians should decide on the question whether to go to war or not, but on the basis of projected consequences by the military. the military should not judge the question of whether to go to war or not. It should say what the conseqeunces will be if one goes to war, or not. but Rumsfeld wants to be manager, trainer, team owner, goalie and goal-getter in one person. Reminds me of the military dilletancy of Hitler. Both of them are so great "Feldherren und Schlachtenlenker", for the same reason: megalomania and an unquestioned belief of how phantastic they are.
That he bypasses reality and lives in his own bubble, using force and cynism to push "his reality" through beyond reason and human interest, he has proven before in the far east, and in Korean diplomacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GunnersMate
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 225
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| He might not be the brightest star in the sky but he gave hilarious press conferences during Enduring Freedom! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skybird
Joined: 21 Sep 2001
Posts: 4131
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GunnersMate wrote: | | He might not be the brightest star in the sky but he gave hilarious press conferences during Enduring Freedom! |
Admitted, he definetely is in the wrong business. He could be the star of every evening'S show program  I even share his dry humour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ducimus
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| August wrote: | Truth be told is that the Generals have always hated Rumsfeld because he wanted to ditch traditional command and mission baliwicks in favor of a leaner, more capable and effective fighting force and was willing to fire any brass that wouldn't get with the program.
|
I read about this a long time ago. Rumsfield eraned my "oh crap!" reactioin awhile ago. Replacing manpower with technology is an entirely bad idea, and needs to be rethought out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
