OORAH Rumsfeld!

[Hagbard Celine]

I would have to say that it is the public like you that knows little about actual tactics of war that have prevented our military from going in and doing what would have finished this shit a long time ago. In war things get broken, good and bad people are killed and iinjured and hopefully evil loses. Having the press against us and looking for anything that could be misunderstood and sensationalized replayed 24 hours a day and to the world is not a way to fight a war successfully. Asswipe Democrat politicians that purposely misinterpret and outright lie about what is actually happening in order to make political points with their incredibly uninformed, easily led constituents make it much harder on our soldiers that are actually trying to win.

A great example of misinterpreting and lying about events is illustrated in this same paragraph by you, is it on purpose or just ignorance? To anyone with any knowledge about the military the "Mission Accomplished" banner was a proud acnowledgement of a carrier group that had been away from their home base for 6 months performing a mission(Rim of the Pacific exercises)then being called on to relieve the USS George Washington Battle Group that was in the Persian Gulf. Their pilots and crew flew 1,500 sorties off that deck in 100 days participating in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" then upon being relieved they took the very long track back to San Diego and on to Washington. They had more than accomplished their mission. The President took the opportunity of their arrival in San Diego to show the crew the ultimate amount of respect and trust by flying a S-3B Viking onto the ship. Hardly an aircraft that would be classified as a "fighter" the Viking is a multimission aircraft used to hunt submarines and as a tanker. What you so gayly called a "pilot's outfit" is known as a flight suit worn by anyone that sits in an ejection seat. Katy Couric wore one to ride with the Blue Angels and none of the critics said anything about it or the fuel the Blue Angels used to impress her tiny brain. In reality that wasn't the problem, all of you Dems tried to picture any of your clown candidates in that same flight suit and saw dorks but when you looked at the Commander In Chief in it you realized he could have been in Top Gun. Imagine Bill Clintons fat rolls in that form fitting suit, hahahahahaha John Kerry? Ha ha hahahahahaha.....Algore? forget it!

You and the other idiots demanding dates and times for the big pull out show even more ignorance about military strategy.

What would you do right now to leave Iraq with a victory General Hagbard? If President Bush cared about politics wouldn't he be doing whatever to just get out as soon as possible? Wouldn't he have done everything completely different to score political points if that was all he was about?

Bullsh*t. That was the story the administration issued after the fallout, which makes absolutely no sense if you have half a brain. The speech Bush gave on that ship was to signify the end of major combat operations in Iraq, not the end of mission for a single ship. I'm impressed with your vast military knowledge. Sarcasm intended. Maybe oneday if I lapse into a coma you can come entertain me with one of your long, boring diatribes about planes, trains and fabulous military fashionsss. Until then I think a warning label should be put on your posts, "do not operate heavy machinery while reading poochie's posts." Nice jab at Clinton. What he has to do with this I can't fathom--oh yeah, when an doofus is losing an argument he changes the subject. Almost forgot.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Very colorful, just the type of insight that gets your ass kicked daily. Great job of projecting your own lifestyle on others.

You guys are like little kids. "Move and you're gay." "No, you're gay." "No you."

I think you're both gay.

 

[sitarro]

You guys are like little kids. "Move and you're gay." "No, you're gay." "No you."

I think you're both gay.

I guess you forget that you posted the picture voted most faggish on this board. Are you still having problems with feathers in your mouth? You are so obviously a catcher fagbard.:finger:

 

[sitarro]

Bullsh*t. That was the story the administration issued after the fallout, which makes absolutely no sense if you have half a brain. The speech Bush gave on that ship was to signify the end of major combat operations in Iraq, not the end of mission for a single ship. I'm impressed with your vast military knowledge. Sarcasm intended. Maybe oneday if I lapse into a coma you can come entertain me with one of your long, boring diatribes about planes, trains and fabulous military fashionsss. Until then I think a warning label should be put on your posts, "do not operate heavy machinery while reading poochie's posts." Nice jab at Clinton. What he has to do with this I can't fathom--oh yeah, when an doofus is losing an argument he changes the subject. Almost forgot.

Well ace what is your definition of major combat? The USS Abraham Lincoln was returning home after launching 1,500 bombing sorties from it's deck, it's mission was accomplished, why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you see any more bombing runs happening against targets in Iraq by the good guys? No you don't. Major combat operations are over and have been over for years. Oh by the way a carrier group is not a single ship dumbass. Once again you, like that blow buddy of yours wiz, have shown you know absolutely nothng about what you are trying to write about. Go retreat to a dark room and play with yourself little boy.:baby:

 

[Hagbard Celine]

And you have the temerity to call others "zealots?" Hypocrite, thy name is HagbardCeline!.

I agree with the other posters who have voiced outrage at your characterizations regarding Rumsfeld, his speach and his audience. You are lower than low, and a cockroach would not have to raise itself very far from the ground for you to pass underneath. You are a coward because of the way you disrespect the men and women in uniform who support their current CiC, his administration and their mission. You mock these soldiers who are your betters, who have taken a personal stand for their beliefs and their responsibilities, and for that you are a boorish cad. Moreover, you parrot the talking points of those who oppose this administration out of hand, and that makes you a toady for the luny left.

Hagbard, grow up.

To answer your question, YES. I have the temerity. Your response is a typical zealot response. You caught wind of the slightest negativity towards your precious, cuddly military and you sprang into attack mode like a rabid junkyard dog. I don't share in your worship of war or of the military. I don't think that today's volunteer soldiers are the same as those who were drafted and fought during the world wars or that they deserve the same level of respect and I don't think today's is even the same kind of war. I also think you need to look up the word "coward" because you don't know what it means. It doesn't mean "disrespectful" just in case you were wondering. I also don't think that soldiers deserve my respect just for being in the military. It's not hard to join the military. Any schmuck with 20/20 vision and normal feet can do it. I'd like to see half of the kids who sign-up with the military do what I've done with my life and without government supplied housing, pension, medical care, wardrobe and orders. Too many of you forget that the military works for us. It's not the other way around. We aren't here to support them. The relationship between us and the military isn't to be cheerleaders for their team. They are the muscle arm of our government--on the most basic level, they are our nation's gang of hired thugs and we pit them against everyone else's gang of hired thugs. Now don't get me wrong here. I don't hate the military--which, I'm sure is the automatic, default judgement your jingoistic minds have leaped to. Far from it. In fact, my own mom is in the army reserve. But I don't think they deserve hero worship and unwavering social protection from ever hearing anything negative said about what they do. In fact, I think the opposite. I think they should know exactly what everyone thinks about what they're doing. The fact that their job is to murder people on the opposite side of an ideological spectrum makes it imperative that they know exactly what we the people think about what they're doing, not only because what they are doing affects people's lives, but also because what they are doing they are doing in our collective names. So I am and I'm going to be right up from with them. The policies they so loyally support are the same policies that result in their own maimings and deaths. And I think it's idiotic that they cheer-on the administration sending them to their deaths while they jeer and cuss the group striving to bring them home.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Well ace what is your definition of major combat? The USS Abraham Lincoln was returning home after launching 1,500 bombing sorties from it's deck, it's mission was accomplished, why is that so hard for you to understand? Do you see any more bombing runs happening against targets in Iraq by the good guys? No you don't. Major combat operations are over and have been over for years. Oh by the way a carrier group is not a single ship dumbass. Once again you, like that blow buddy of yours wiz, have shown you know absolutely nothng about what you are trying to write about. Go retreat to a dark room and play with yourself little boy.:baby:

I understand what you're saying. The point is that you're wrong about the "mission accomplished" banner. I'm not going to indulge you in your homoerotic fantasies about me masterbating myself, so I'll get to the point. Since Bush's little "mission accomplished" debacle on the deck of that SINGLE ship (I don't know how you think he could've been on more than one in that armada), over 2,500 US soldiers have died. If they're not dying in COMBAT, what the f*ck are they dying of over there genius? I don't know who wiz is, but your little homoerotic posts are starting to give me the creeps. Why don't you do us all a favor and come out of the closet so the rest of us will have some peace? Oh yeah, I guess your military heroes would'nt think too highly of you if you expressed your true self.

 

[sitarro]

I understand what you're saying. The point is that you're wrong about the "mission accomplished" banner. I'm not going to indulge you in your homoerotic fantasies about me masterbating myself, so I'll get to the point. Since Bush's little "mission accomplished" debacle on the deck of that SINGLE ship (I don't know how you think he could've been on more than one in that armada), over 2,500 US soldiers have died. If they're not dying in COMBAT, what the f*ck are they dying of over there genius? I don't know who wiz is, but your little homoerotic posts are starting to give me the creeps. Why don't you do us all a favor and come out of the closet so the rest of us will have some peace? Oh yeah, I guess your military heroes would'nt think too highly of you if you expressed your true self.

No you don't little boy, you don't seem to understand much of anything. MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS dumbass, bombing runs, buildings destroyed and large amounts of casualties on the loser side. There have been at least 2,500 murders in this country since then do you call that major combat? The fact is you don't give a shit about the U.S.troops killed or injured, you've proven that in your other posts. You're just scared shitless that the draft will be restated. Nothing for you to worry about kid, the military doesn't take obvious homosexuals. One look at that pointy little head of yours and you'll get the big pass.

So wiz and you didn't exchange names last night? I bet a runt like you is very popular in the bath houses of Atlanta.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

No you don't little boy, you don't seem to understand much of anything. MAJOR COMBAT OPERATIONS dumbass, bombing runs, buildings destroyed and large amounts of casualties on the loser side. There have been at least 2,500 murders in this country since then do you call that major combat? The fact is you don't give a shit about the U.S.troops killed or injured, you've proven that in your other posts. You're just scared shitless that the draft will be restated. Nothing for you to worry about kid, the military doesn't take obvious homosexuals. One look at that pointy little head of yours and you'll get the big pass.

So wiz and you didn't exchange names last night? I bet a runt like you is very popular in the bath houses of Atlanta.

So your arguments are so baseless that you've resorted to slinging sh*t at me like a chimpanzee in a cage? Another pathetic knuckle dragger hits the dust. I'm pro-gay rights. I've got a gay uncle. I don't care if you call me a homo. I know what I am and what I am is none of your business anyway. I know you think I'm handsome but it makes you nervous so you put your own homoerotic frustrations out on me. Freud called it "projecting." The fact of the matter is that your arguments are so flimsy that they wouldn't hold-up under the flutter of a butterfly's wings. But you are right about one thing. With the one obvious exception of my mom, I don't care about the troops. They volunteered to get where they are right now and I didn't vote for the administration that has sent them there. They've made the bed and they're sleeping in it. However, if they're going to be sent into hell for the so-called "protection" of our great nation, I do think they should be given basic things like body armor and armored vehicles. And I don't think their medical and VA benefits should be cut so that they'll be well taken care of when they do get blown up, which is more than can be said for the administration you so adamantly defend. By the way, are you insinuating that the troops are not dying in combat but are instead dying in normal day-to-day murders occuring in Iraq? Because if you are, I've underestimated your stupidity.

 

[shepherdboy]

The comment I made above has struck a nerve with ya'll because it has truth in it. We have a volunteer military full of people who pledge undying support for bad policies that result in physical harm and death being inflicted upon themselves all in the name of some warped sense of patriotism riding on the assumption that any form of dissent, even when it has to do with minor military management issues (like getting body armor to the troops), is regarded as "un-patriotic." It's ridiculous, jingo-istic lemming mentality. "Stay the course" has been the mantra for this administration since the initial invasion in 2003 and since then over 2,500 US casualties have occurred, not to mention uncounted maimings resulting in the permanent disablement of perfectly healthy men and women. And we know the administration has mis-managed military operations from the beginning, whether is was the amount of troops needed to successfully invade and take control of Iraq or inadequate body and vehicle armor for troops or even prisoner interrogation techniques. So the administration hawks call people who want to plan an end to the war "cut-and-runners" and compares them to Nazi-appeasers and the military buys it hook, line and sinker, even though it means they'll have to stay over in that hell-hole and keep getting blown-up for years to come with no end in sight. How do you explain that?

Dude how about doing something positive with all that build up rage you have. Maybe you could visit some of those U.S. soldiers,sailors,airmen and Marines who were injured in this war. Maybe attend a funeral of one of the fallen in combat and talk to the family and just see what he or she was all about. Better, how about sending some body armor or maybe some care packages to show your love for a fellow country man or women in service of this country. If you want positive change in this world of hate, its got to start with your heart.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Dude how about doing something positive with all that build up rage you have. Maybe you could visit some of those U.S. soldiers,sailors,airmen and Marines who were injured in this war. Maybe attend a funeral of one of the fallen in combat and talk to the family and just see what he or she was all about. Better, how about sending some body armor or maybe some care packages to show your love for a fellow country man or women in service of this country. If you want positive change in this world of hate, its got to start with your heart.

Hey, I'm not hatin' and I'm not ragin' either. Why does a less-than-worshipful attitute toward US troops have to mean I'm a steaming, hateful, mean-spirited person? Is it just too surprising to handle? I'm 23 years old. I can't afford to buy and send body armor to US troops yet. The huge, bloody gash that the government takes out of my paycheck every two weeks is supposed to pay for that kind of thing anyway. As for visiting injured US troops on the weekend? I work almost 60 hours a week. I'm buying a house that needs a lot of work. I commute. And the girl I'm seeing lives in another town, plus I'm not running for public office--yet. I can assure you that what free time I have will not be spent doing something as depressing as visiting 19-year-old amputees. This holiday weekend I think I'll go to the lake instead.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Seems to me that Rumsfeld is the right man for the wrong job. President Bush didn't sign him on as Secretary of Defense because of his stellar resume on fighting terrorism, or even wars. Bush brought him in to "modernize" the US military. Rumsfeld was supposed to create an integrated battlefield, introduce new and more powerful guided weapons and vehicles, etc. Rumsfeld was supposed to "cut the fat" from the US military machine while preparing to face off againt China. Then 9/11 hit and all those plans got blown out of the water. Right now we're in an age where the battefield isn't confined to a single city or area with two or more large-scale armies duking it out, but to small groups spread out across a whole country, and that the key to victory isn't killing all the enemies forces but rather winning their hearts and minds. The problem is that Rumsfeld didn't approach Iraq like that. He expected to roll through with one single offensive, topple Saddam, secure the country, hand over power to a new Iraqi government, and leave. Rumsfeld original mission is synonymous with the first two of those, but totally out of sync with the remaining three. Rumsfeld didn't realize this and that's why we're in the situation we're in now. What we need to do, as a beginning, is move Rumsfeld out of the position of Secretary of Defense and put him incharge of future weapons deployment, then we need to take some disciple of Thomas X. Hammes and Thomas P.M. Barnett in the main chair, finally we need to implement a broad program changing the focus of the US military from superpower war, which we won't have to worry about for at least another 40 years, and divert the majority of our battlefield expertise to guerilla combat.

 

[jillian]

Seems to me that Rumsfeld is the right man for the wrong job. President Bush didn't sign him on as Secretary of Defense because of his stellar resume on fighting terrorism, or even wars. Bush brought him in to "modernize" the US military. Rumsfeld was supposed to create an integrated battlefield, introduce new and more powerful guided weapons and vehicles, etc. Rumsfeld was supposed to "cut the fat" from the US military machine while preparing to face off againt China. Then 9/11 hit and all those plans got blown out of the water. Right now we're in an age where the battefield isn't confined to a single city or area with two or more large-scale armies duking it out, but to small groups spread out across a whole country, and that the key to victory isn't killing all the enemies forces but rather winning their hearts and minds. The problem is that Rumsfeld didn't approach Iraq like that. He expected to roll through with one single offensive, topple Saddam, secure the country, hand over power to a new Iraqi government, and leave. Rumsfeld original mission is synonymous with the first two of those, but totally out of sync with the remaining three. Rumsfeld didn't realize this and that's why we're in the situation we're in now. What we need to do, as a beginning, is move Rumsfeld out of the position of Secretary of Defense and put him incharge of future weapons deployment, then we need to take some disciple of Thomas X. Hammes and Thomas P.M. Barnett in the main chair, finally we need to implement a broad program changing the focus of the US military from superpower war, which we won't have to worry about for at least another 40 years, and divert the majority of our battlefield expertise to guerilla combat.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Rumsfeld was brought in specifically to address Iraq. What 9/11 did was provide a built-in justification for Iraq, even though there wasn't a single Iraqi among the 9/11 hijackers or a shred of evidence linking Saddam to the plot.

If you look at this, perhaps you'll see why I disagree with your assessment of the reasons for Rummy's appointment.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

 

[dilloduck]

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Rumsfeld was brought in specifically to address Iraq. What 9/11 did was provide a built-in justification for Iraq, even though there wasn't a single Iraqi among the 9/11 hijackers or a shred of evidence linking Saddam to the plot.

If you look at this, perhaps you'll see why I disagree with your assessment of the reasons for Rummy's appointment.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

It's a war on terrorism and those that would support it----not a war on a few jihadists and Bin Laden. Think bigger and you might get it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Rumsfeld was brought in specifically to address Iraq. What 9/11 did was provide a built-in justification for Iraq, even though there wasn't a single Iraqi among the 9/11 hijackers or a shred of evidence linking Saddam to the plot.

I'm with you on the fact that the administration's justifications for Iraq was overstated and that we are in a hell of a bigger mess than we were lead to believe, but I don't think that Rumsfeld was brought in for the sole reason of invading Iraq. His excellent work as leader of the "space commission" and the Technology Transformation Committee right before his resumption of duties as Secretary of Defense speaks to a different picture. While admittedly Rumsfelds was probably for the use of force in Iraq, I haven't seen any evidence of preplanning that far back. The letter you presented was merely in responce to Desert Fox, an already ongoing conflict at the time.

Here are links to the two commission reports. You will find a link to the transformation committees report in the first few pages of the link.
http://www.space.gov/docs/fullreport.pdf

 

[jillian]

I'm with you on the fact that the administration's justifications for Iraq was overstated and that we are in a hell of a bigger mess than we were lead to believe, but I don't think that Rumsfeld was brought in for the sole reason of invading Iraq. His excellent work as leader of the "space commission" and the Technology Transformation Committee right before his resumption of duties as Secretary of Defense speaks to a different picture. While admittedly Rumsfelds was probably for the use of force in Iraq, I haven't seen any evidence of preplanning that far back. The letter you presented was merely in responce to Desert Fox, an already ongoing conflict at the time.

Here are links to the two commission reports. You will find a link to the transformation committees report in the first few pages of the link.
http://www.space.gov/docs/fullreport.pdf

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, particularly since Rumsfeld was one of the signatories on the PNAC letter that I linked. And it wasn't just a response to Desert Fox, IMO, it was a call for Clinton to "reshape the middle east", which is ultimately what Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, etc, all came into the admin intending to accomplish, starting with Iraq. No 9/11 had occurred yet.

Also, you might want to have a look at this one... goes back to 1996... details the middle east agenda far in advance of 9/11

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

 

[trobinett]

Our citizen soldiers would be proud, really.

What they do allows us to have these conversations, I for one, tip my hat to them all.

The debate is healthy, its necessary even, but the left does go too far at times. Just like in this thread.

Without naming names, to refer to those that allow us to sleep soundly at night in a belittling way, stumps? Is shameful, and that person should be censured, plain and simple.

I enjoy most of the give, and take I see on this board, I think its good, I think it makes us think, both sides of the issue are brought forward.

But, to me mean, and to be mean to get a "rise" is just plain wrong.

I've lost respect for those that use such tactics in the past, and on other boards, and I feel the same after reading this thread.

I will NOT participate further in this thread.