Author Topic: 86 rumsfeld?  (Read 319 times)

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
86 rumsfeld?
« on: January 09, 2005, 04:52:43 PM »
here is what andrew sullivan, a conservative blogger has to say about it.

"HY RUMSFELD MUST GO: Fred Kagan sums it up eloquently. Kudos to the Weekly Standard for keeping up the pressure:

    With more troops in Iraq during and immediately after the war, we would have been able to do the following things that we did not do:

    * Capture or kill thousands of Iraqi soldiers who were at that time still concentrated in combat units and had not yet melted back into the countryside with their weapons and their skills.

    * Guard the scores of enormous ammunition dumps from which the insurgents have drawn the vast majority of their weapons, ammunition, and explosives.

    * Secure critical oil and electrical infrastructure that the insurgents subsequently attacked, setting back the economic and political recovery of Iraq.

    * Prevent the development of insurgent safe havens in Najaf and Falluja, or at least disrupt them at a much earlier stage of formation.

    * Work to interdict the infiltration of foreign fighters across Iraq's borders.

    If the U.S. Army had begun expanding in 2001, we would have been able to:

    * Establish reasonable rotation plans for our soldiers that did not require repeatedly extending tours of duty beyond one year.

    * Avoid the need to activate reservists involuntarily.

    * Dramatically reduce the frequency with which soldiers return from one year-long tour only to be sent immediately on another.

    * Let the troops that would still have been overstrained know that help really was on the way.

    The U.S. military did not do these things because of Rumsfeld's choices.

And those choices have greatly impeded our ability to win the war. I have no ill-will for Rumsfeld. He's the object of much unfair personal criticism. He's a deeply kind man, extremely smart, and dedicated to the public good. But his errors have alas compounded our problem. And at some point, accountability must mean something. "

thoughts on the subject?

anyone?
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2005, 05:22:52 PM »
Only a liberal rag like the Weekly Standard would print crap like that! :)

It is interesting to see how quickly the neocons (real neocons like Kristol, not just a misuse of the word) eat their own in search of a scapegoat.

Charon

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2005, 05:49:43 PM »
sorta like "american" conservatives like rush?  

not a liberal.  just an "american".  just askin.

how does one side of america demanding "accountability"  not translate back to that side when there is a regime...er...side change?

isnt that "eating your own" on a greater level?

as harry s said.  buck stops here.  

or does it stop higher?

should it stop higher?

at the top?

hmmmmm.

maybe there shouldnt be accountability at all?  hmmmm.  it would certainly make my life easier.

yes.  i think that it would.  if it were only me of course.

so, if i were a liberal "american", which i am not.  (i am a more of a moderate.  social liberal / fiscal conservative if i had to say)....i might think that you were trying to eat me.

i think that i might need salt.  fyi.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2005, 06:01:46 PM by JB88 »
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline soda72

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5201
Re: 86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2005, 06:00:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JB88
* Avoid the need to activate reservists involuntarily.


Good example of an Oxymoron....

They already volounteered, so how can it be involuntarily?

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2005, 06:03:22 PM »
a good point.

but if i am not mistaken, many are being kept beyond thier commitments...is this true?

i have no opinion on this matter, other than that rumsfeld reminds me of grand moff tarkin.
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline genozaur

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 562
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2005, 06:38:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JB88
a good point.

but if i am not mistaken, many are being kept beyond thier commitments...is this true?

i have no opinion on this matter, other than that rumsfeld reminds me of grand moff tarkin.


As a philologiist can't help but explain to you, guys, that the volunteers who are being kept  beyond their commitments can't be called volunteers anymore. I feel the draught here.

Offline Lizking

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2502
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2005, 06:39:03 PM »
Unless what you volunteer for includes the clause that allows you to be kept on duty.

Offline soda72

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5201
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2005, 06:40:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by JB88

but if i am not mistaken, many are being kept beyond thier commitments...is this true?


Are you referring about the IRR?  It's made very clear to soldiers that fall under IRR that they still have a commitment and can be recalled.  I think enlisted soldiers in the reserve sign up for a minimum of two years on the IRR list.  

However there was one case were a soldier was kept for an additional 90 days(??) after meeting his commitment which I did not agree with.

Quote


i have no opinion on this matter, other than that rumsfeld reminds me of grand moff tarkin.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Rum has made mistakes....  But it's an easy accusation to throw out..   As long as Rumsfeld doesn't repeat them I will continue to have faith in his leadership...

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2005, 06:41:16 PM »
the devil exists within the clause?

wouldnt it have been better for the gov.  to find an alternate solution?
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2005, 06:44:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charon
Only a liberal rag like the Weekly Standard would print crap like that! :)

It is interesting to see how quickly the neocons (real neocons like Kristol, not just a misuse of the word) eat their own in search of a scapegoat.

Charon


Alot of conservatives think that Rumsfeld has dropped the ball and would like to see him go.

as far as volunteer or not.


it does not matter HOW LONG YOUR CONTRACT IS IRR OR ACTIVE.

IT SAYS CLEARLY THAT YOU CAN BE HELD ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR THE DURATION OF A CONFLICT OR NATIONAL EMERENCY PLUS 6 MONTHS!

when you sign the contract u are giveing your life to the military.  They own you no ifs ands or buts.

Offline JB88

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10980
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2005, 06:45:11 PM »
[/B][/QUOTE]

Rum has made mistakes....  But it's an easy accusation to throw out..   As long as Rumsfeld doesn't repeat them I will continue to have faith in his leadership... [/B][/QUOTE]



"you may fire when ready commander"
this thread is doomed.
www.augustbach.com  

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. -Ulysses.

word.

Offline genozaur

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 562
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2005, 06:55:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Alot of conservatives think that Rumsfeld has dropped the ball and would like to see him go.

as far as volunteer or not.


it does not matter HOW LONG YOUR CONTRACT IS IRR OR ACTIVE.

IT SAYS CLEARLY THAT YOU CAN BE HELD ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR THE DURATION OF A CONFLICT OR NATIONAL EMERENCY PLUS 6 MONTHS!

when you sign the contract u are giveing your life to the military.  They own you no ifs ands or buts.


I feel the real draught here. Or maybe it is spelt "draft" ?

Offline Gunslinger

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10084
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2005, 07:55:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by genozaur
I feel the real draught here. Or maybe it is spelt "draft" ?


draught....draft it doesnt matter.  When somone signs up in the military they can be held indefinatly on active duty for the duration of a conflict plus 6 months.  That is clear as day in the contract.

Offline genozaur

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 562
86 rumsfeld?
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2005, 08:50:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gunslinger
draught....draft it doesnt matter.  When somone signs up in the military they can be held indefinatly on active duty for the duration of a conflict plus 6 months.  That is clear as day in the contract.


It's pretty clear. Especially if you take into account that in the 19th century in czarist Russia the duration of army service on active duty for soldiers' rank and file was 25 years. Another fact is that the SS volunteers were signing 2-year contract and were happily released back to their families even during the operation "Barbarossa".

Also Comrade Stalin used to keep drafted soldiers in the Red Army far beyond his commitments. The explaination was simple: in the 1930s there was a military conflict almost every year.  Some of the guys (not very numerous survivors) served for ten years and more, starting from late 1930s till late 1940s. Sorry, that I've got carried away here - they were not volunteers.

Also my poor memory tells me that there were some very long conflicts, like 100-years war, 60-years war, also 21-year war between Sweden and Russia (1700-1721).

The war on terrorism began in 2001 and it's gonna end sometime in this century. So the farewell to wives is imminent for the brave guys
who signed for that absolutely clear clause in their contracts. I wonder if they are going to serve 10, 21, 60, 100 years on active duty ? + 6 months ?

My point is the following : the United States of America has to have the draft in one form or another. It's a shame that the government has to rely on hooky clause in the contract for the volunteers. But when you don't have enough soldiers you have to do something.

A couple of days ago I read somewhere (maybe even at AH BBs) about a wounded soldier who lost his thumb, receives $100 compensation for it, and now sleeps at the homeless shelter.
Was that poor chap also a volunteer ?
:confused:
« Last Edit: January 09, 2005, 09:09:30 PM by genozaur »