Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: x0847Marine on November 08, 2006, 11:52:20 AM
-
Breaking news.... Donald H. Rumsfeld is history.
Good, I think, depends who is next I guess.
-
That's a big step for Bush, he's backed him all the way, Even though I didn't really think that Rumsfield did a great Job, Kudos to the guy for sticking it out for this long.
-
Dont remeber the name, but he announced the name of the guy that replaces Rummy. He has led the CIA among other things and served both parties.
-edit- Robert Gates is the name.
-
Strange timing. Seems like tossing Rumsfeld before the election could have helped out the administration's image and maybe helped them hang on to more seats. Then again, it could be taken as an admission that they suck, which, as the election showed, a lot of the country already knew.
Also, since the new Sec of Def will have to be approved by the Senate, it would have been easier to get their guy through when the Senate wasn't hanging on a razor-thin margin after the election.
Good riddance. Hope they find someone good as a replacement.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Dont remeber the name, but he announced the name of the guy that replaces Rummy. He has led the CIA among other things and served both parties.
CIA G-man Robert Gates is the new dude. Fern is on TV eating a festering bowl of Humble Crow pie with the announcement.
-
Who cares?
Britney and KFed are getting divorced!:cry
-
i hope Gates is good at retreating, ...er ..i mean withdrawing.
-
Its a good thing. Rum has been steering this boat in Iraq and it has not been steered well. Not at all. Bush is a significant disappointment to me. I hope the democrats can step up to the plate but I do not hold out much hope. They are subject to the same pressures and temptations. We are doomed.
Poor Brittany. If only she would let me pet her and keep her warm :aok
-
It's just another foolish mistake. Rumsfeld has been sacrificed. Nothing more. As the Secretary of Defense he was only carrying out Bush's orders. Further, I'd hazard a guess that Rumsfeld was wanting to be more aggressive and Bush was holding him back. That was the wrong thing to do. They need to be aggressively hitting the insurgency with overwhelming force. And finally, now we'll have the Democrats demanding that they be allowed to pick the new Secretary of Defense, and we'll have a long and nasty confirmation process, because Bush will not be able to pick anyone that satisfies the Democrats. It's the wrong move at the wrong time. All that has happened here is that in deference to the election results and the lack of progress in the war a cabinet member has been sacrificed. Nothing more.
-
Maybe Colin Powel will make a resurgence in the role.... ?
-
Originally posted by Regular
Who cares?
Britney and KFed are getting divorced!:cry
That's not the worst news...NPH is gay. Man, first Lance Bass now NPH...who's next, Matthew Broderick? So many burly men are coming out lately.
http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1554852,00.html (http://people.aol.com/people/article/0,26334,1554852,00.html)
-
I wasn't surprised after hearing about this editorial (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php)
And you know...although some will argue with me...Bush could have helped himself and fellow Republicans by admitting the (pickone: search for WMDs, nation building, War on Terrorism, prevention of civil war) in Iraq has failed miserably.
I know, I know...the liberal media and dems would rip him apart. But more so than they have done already?
By not admitting what is blatantly obvious, he appears (to me) to be either incredibly stupid, or arrogant.
State you were mistaken in assuming a quick war, did not plan properly, then announce new plans for dealing with the situation. Either withdraw or send more troops b/c "staying the course" (read: half-arsed strategy) just ain't gonna cut it.
-
I am quite often wrong in my prognostications, so I am going to say this, in the hopes I am wrong, again: I forsee a disgraceful and chaotic retreat...er...I mean withdrawl from Iraq and Pakistan in our near future.
-
Originally posted by Regular
Who cares?
Britney and KFed are getting divorced!:cry
i heard thats just a rumor:noid :noid :huh :huh :huh
-
Originally posted by slimm50
I am quite often wrong in my prognostications, so I am going to say this, in the hopes I am wrong, again: I forsee a disgraceful and chaotic retreat...er...I mean withdrawl from Iraq and Pakistan in our near future.
might as well bringim home, this freakin country dont deserve them,with
dems in charge...just roll over and ask for muslims permission to breathe...
-
Six years too late IMO
-
...and the Chimp in Chief wants another Fine Upstanding Citizen to replace him. suprise freakin' suprise...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Intelligence_career
"He was nominated to become the Director of Central Intelligence in early 1987, but withdrew the nomination after it became clear the Senate would reject it due to controversy about his role in the Iran-Contra affair."
-
Seems like this was a move by the office of the president to ask the new democrats for "non-partisanship", a sacrificial lamb if you will....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Seems like this was a move by the office of the president to ask the new democrats for "non-partisanship", a sacrificial lamb if you will....
And a failed one at that.
-
1 down
2 to go!
-
Rumsfeld as a sacrificial lamb? :rofl
A modern day Robert McNamara but without the amusing middle name.
-
Actions now lay the foundation for the presidential election. It has not been a happy time.
Regards,
hap
-
Congrats to another potential Medal of Freedom winner. Rumsie you did a heck of a job.
-
That's not the worst news...NPH is gay. Man, first Lance Bass now NPH.
Neil Patrick Harris is gay??? Doogie Houser... never woulda guessed that one...
Lets see... Rumsfeld resigns... The Dems come back with avengence... and Brittany and K-fed are over, and NPH is gay...
I'm pretty sure these are all signs of the apocalypse. :noid :noid :noid
j/k
Oh and Rummy... don't let the door hit you in the arse...
-
BRING BACK OLLIE NORTH! NOW THAT GUY IS A REAL PATRIOT!!1one!1eleventy
/couldn't resist.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
BRING BACK OLLIE NORTH! NOW THAT GUY IS A REAL PATRIOT!!1one!1eleventy
/couldn't resist.
i don't think North would be good at retreating, er... i meant "redeployment".
-
Originally posted by john9001
i don't think North would be good at retreating, er... i meant "redeployment".
I believe the Japanese refer to this as a 'retrograde maneuver'.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
...and the Chimp in Chief wants another Fine Upstanding Citizen to replace him. suprise freakin' suprise...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates#Intelligence_career
"He was nominated to become the Director of Central Intelligence in early 1987, but withdrew the nomination after it became clear the Senate would reject it due to controversy about his role in the Iran-Contra affair."
Kind of like the impeached Judge that will become chairman of the intel. committee.
-
the Iraq war is his baby, now he leaves this mess
behind and let other sort it out, way to easy if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
the Iraq war is his baby, now he leaves this mess
behind and let other sort it out, way to easy if you ask me.
I hate to tell you this, but I doubt Rumsfeld left entirely on his own. He took one for the team.
-
Accountability, in politics, does not exist here Ghostft.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Kind of like the impeached Judge that will become chairman of the intel. committee.
alcee hastings, God help us.
-
Get ready, they've given the Democrats their first scalp. The Democrats will NOT be satisfied. Not even close. The first mistake is GIVING them their first scalp. It's like tossing a member of your group to the sharks and hoping they'll eat him and let you go. Don't bet on it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Accountability, in politics, does not exist here Ghostft.
Tis a shame. No matter what color their party is, the only goal seems to put their own interests and spending habits ahead of the US public.
Wish Federalism hadn't gone out of style. Be nice if Big Pork was starved by only receiving...mmm...maybe 10% of each state's total budget.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Get ready, they've given the Democrats their first scalp. The Democrats will NOT be satisfied. Not even close. The first mistake is GIVING them their first scalp. It's like tossing a member of your group to the sharks and hoping they'll eat him and let you go. Don't bet on it.
So do you think Rumsfeld should keep running the US military + Iraq war the way he has been? I guess the Military Times is just another liberal media outlet...
(P.S. I'm not a democrat)
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
So do you think Rumsfeld should keep running the US military + Iraq war the way he has been? I guess the Military Times is just another liberal media outlet...
(P.S. I'm not a democrat)
Dont you know its the dems fault, or Clintons fault or gay marriage is the fault.
Even with the reps in complete control the dems have been blamed. Sad really..
:)
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
So do you think Rumsfeld should keep running the US military + Iraq war the way he has been? I guess the Military Times is just another liberal media outlet...
(P.S. I'm not a democrat)
The Military Times IS NOT a real military publication. It isn't even well liked in the military, they pretty much call it the National Enquirer of military news. Just so you know.......
Do you not understand that the Secretary of Defense is for the most part the guy who dictates the President's policy to the Pentagon?
And no, actually I think the President should listen to Rumsfeld for a change. I seriously doubt it was Rumsfeld who DIDN'T want to send the right people in and take care of al Sadr.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
Tis a shame. No matter what color their party is, the only goal seems to put their own interests and spending habits ahead of the US public.
'cept for the Libertarian Party, of course... :)
Wish Federalism hadn't gone out of style. Be nice if Big Pork was starved by only receiving...mmm...maybe 10% of each state's total budget. [/B]
again, gotta plug the LP. Reducing the size/budget of the fedgov is and has been a core item on the LP's agenda.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
the Iraq war is his baby, now he leaves this mess
behind and let other sort it out, way to easy if you ask me.
don't worry, the dems have stepped in to make sure it ends as Vietnam II ...
what's sad is America showing her true color last night ... yellow
do you think the terrorists did not celebrate THEIR victory last night?
-
the dems may have shot themselves in the foot on this one, they have made Iraq the issue, now they have control of congress and everything that happens in Iraq for the next two years will be on their record and they will have to answer for it in 08.
of course the demos have absolutely no plan for Iraq except to say they are not boosh.
mao tse tung called the USA a paper tiger, he was right.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The Military Times IS NOT a real military publication. It isn't even well liked in the military, they pretty much call it the National Enquirer of military news. Just so you know.......
Do you not understand that the Secretary of Defense is for the most part the guy who dictates the President's policy to the Pentagon?
And no, actually I think the President should listen to Rumsfeld for a change. I seriously doubt it was Rumsfeld who DIDN'T want to send the right people in and take care of al Sadr.
I understand that the Military Times is not a real military publication. But it is not exactly "liberal media" as is the usual label on any publication who critiques our Iraq policy.
I do not understand that the Secretary of Defense is for the most part the guy who dictates the President's policy to the Pentagon. If this were trully the case, a robot could do the job. I hardly think Bush simply uses Rummy as a pageboy.
I think Rumsfeld should have listened to the military. The rumblings have been going on for years. But this is material for another post.
-----
Now in all seriousness, I have to ask you: Do you think Rumsfeld or Bush or whoever decided on policy in Iraq did not severely underestimate the task at hand? Put aside the usual party rhetoric/lines and consider the simple question. I am not being a smartarse. I am not trying to get personal.
Going further: If you were Bush and Rumsfeld, what would your plan be for Iraq? How long should we stay there? Are you prepared for 10 years? Can you prepare America (both public opinion, but more importantly economically) for a war that could last 10 years?
What I find absolutely amazing, is that ANY critique of Iraq policy, is instantly labeled "liberal, anti-American, or unpatriotic". I do not consider myself any of those. I think Saddam was/is an idiot, he deserves to die, Iraq (in theory) would be better without him. However, I think that the current Administration has completely bungled the war.
And let me give my "full disclosure" statement: I am not Dem, I used to identify with the Reps. Currently, all I can say is that I like fiscally conservative candidates and I strongly support our military. I come from a military family which has served our country in Army and Navy for 4 generations. I absolutely feel for the families of servicemen and women who are serving and have given their lives.
-
Go and look at what the people in the military say about the "Times".
The President picks people for his cabinet to carry out his policy. That's just how it works. They may handle the details, but he dictates the policy. The exception to that rule is the State Department, which has a life of its own.
I don't think they underestimated anything. I think they fail to understand how to deal with it. At least Rumsfeld was smart enough to know how to free up the military to have some chance of dealing with an assymetrical war. I think the new group they have reworking policy will screw the pooch in a major way.
-
"Weeks not months, months not years." Rumsfeld seriously underestimated this war - along with others - after being told by his own commanders what it would take. Who cashiered Shinsecki right after he testified we needed 240,000 troops to invade AND control? Rumsfeld ignored his military commanders, and the whole bunch refused to entertain any intelligence contrary to their preexisting beliefs fed by Chalabi. They diverted resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq and now the Taliban is making a resurgence - remember them? They actually did harbor terrorists who attacked us.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The President picks people for his cabinet to carry out his policy. That's just how it works. They may handle the details, but he dictates the policy.
If this is the case, I am truly scared. I did not understand that policy was set by one man and carried out by "yes-men". But then again, he did feel called by God to the presidency. So maybe he does have help in setting policy. :D
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I don't think they underestimated anything. I think they fail to understand how to deal with it. At least Rumsfeld was smart enough to know how to free up the military to have some chance of dealing with an assymetrical war. I think the new group they have reworking policy will screw the pooch in a major way.
Fair enough. Either in underestimating or in dealing with it.
And let me say, in all fairness, the Afghan conflict was nearly perfectly executed. We had international support. We made proper use of local forces. We did however fail to catch OBL, but otherwise were successful. Bush deserves maximum credit for getting Rumsfeld to enact his policy here.
We should have finished this job 100% before starting on a new task. Probably should have moved Afghanistan--->Iran--->Iraq--->Syria instead of jumping straight to Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The President picks people for his cabinet to carry out his policy. That's just how it works.
Unless a group of people decide they want to run someone for President so he can carry out their policies.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i hope Gates is good at retreating, ...er ..i mean withdrawing.
LOL dont kid yourself.
The most far left Bush hating liberal in the world could be crowned king tomorrow and those troops still would not be going anywhere any time soon.
I keep hearing people say, and politicians spew rhetoric say how we need to bring the troops home.
But thats all it is. Is rhetoric.
I've yet to hear anyone say how they were planning on accomplishing this.
Those troops are gonna be there for a while no matter who controls what or who is elected into office.
Might as well get used to that thought now
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I keep hearing people say, and politicians spew rhetoric say how we need to bring the troops home.
But thats all it is. Is rhetoric.
I've yet to hear anyone say how they were planning on accomplishing this.
On airplanes and ships? :p
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
If this is the case, I am truly scared. I did not understand that policy was set by one man and carried out by "yes-men". But then again, he did feel called by God to the presidency. So maybe he does have help in setting policy. :D
Fair enough. Either in underestimating or in dealing with it.
And let me say, in all fairness, the Afghan conflict was nearly perfectly executed. We had international support. We made proper use of local forces. We did however fail to catch OBL, but otherwise were successful. Bush deserves maximum credit for getting Rumsfeld to enact his policy here.
We should have finished this job 100% before starting on a new task. Probably should have moved Afghanistan--->Iran--->Iraq--->Syria instead of jumping straight to Iraq.
This is not conventional war. People need to understand that. This is assymetrical war, you go where the fight takes you. You do not get to "finish here and THEN go there" anymore now than we did in World War II, where we DID NOT finish one and then go to another. That's just not how war works, especially not this sort of war. You evaluate threats, prioritize, and act accordingly. Saddam Hussien's Iraq happened at the time to be more actively supporting terrorism than Iran, North Korea or Syria. Oh, and if you ask the right people in the military, they'll tell you they are killing the terrorists from Syria, Jordan, and Iran as they enter Iraq. Not all of them, but a large number of them.
None of the theaters of operations will be closed out soon. We're not dealing with countries, uniformed armies, and legal combatants, and this is not a conventional war. I suggest you look for Boyd's theories on assymetrical warfare, and take a look at that. It will be stated with regards to dealing mostly with a uniformed enemy, but you can apply it to terrorism and the countries that support it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
This is not conventional war. People need to understand that. This is assymetrical war, you go where the fight takes you.
I am perfectly aware that this is not a conventional war: It is 1/2 supressing rebellion and fighting terrorist and 1/2 preventing civil war...exactly what we planned on.
Asymmetric war is nothing new. It is just a new term for a way of fighting which maximizes your strengths while exploiting your enemy's weaknesses...including numbers of men (and women), technology available and position (sea and land). It does require any theories to explain, as I'm pretty much sure it is common sense.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
None of the theaters of operations will be closed out soon.
You and I both recognize this. I absolutely do not believe the war will be over anytime soon. However, ex-Sec Rumsfeld did:
"...it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
From the US Department of Defense transcripts. Another liberal media source.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
You and I both recognize this. I absolutely do not believe the war will be over anytime soon. However, ex-Sec Rumsfeld did:
"...it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
From the US Department of Defense transcripts. Another liberal media source.
First, put the quote in full context.
Second, what is with your constant need to add "another liberal media source" to everything you post? The first thing that does is give me the impression you're a pompous jack-ass. If you feel the need to add that to everything you post, then I feel the need to avoid wasting further time and effort on replying to you.
-
Did he do a good job?
No.
Should Bush have dumped him sooner?
Absolutely.
Will I miss his self questioning press confrences?
You bet.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
LOL dont kid yourself.
The most far left Bush hating liberal in the world could be crowned king tomorrow and those troops still would not be going anywhere any time soon.
I keep hearing people say, and politicians spew rhetoric say how we need to bring the troops home.
But thats all it is. Is rhetoric.
I've yet to hear anyone say how they were planning on accomplishing this.
Those troops are gonna be there for a while no matter who controls what or who is elected into office.
Might as well get used to that thought now
It's easier done than you realize. All Congress need do is to cut off funding. The president may be the commander and chief, but the legislative controls the purse.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's easier done than you realize. All Congress need do is to cut off funding. The president may be the commander and chief, but the legislative controls the purse.
EXACTLY what happened in Vietnam. They weren't even satisfied with troop withdrawals, they cut off funding to support our allies even after we quit sending troops. Don't think it won't happen again.
-
Sandy, I clicked on the pirate party. I was expecting real pirates.
Yet I find computer nerds who are for pirating software. How lame.
-
Opinions are like *******s.
We do not support nor condone any unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.
-
Is it just me, or is everybody else beyond tired of the term "assymetrical warfare" like its some kind of new invention?
Its nothing more than any "indirect" tactic or strategy against an enemy, and its been around since men were fighting with animal bones and rocks.
Lets give it a rest. War is war, and your enemy will ALWAYS look for a way to hurt you by any means possible, be they a state, or non-state group, army, terrorist, insurgent et al.
Next somebody will be announcing a new kind of warfare, where these circular things called "wheels" are being employed as "force multipliers".
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
First, put the quote in full context.
Second, what is with your constant need to add "another liberal media source" to everything you post? The first thing that does is give me the impression you're a pompous jack-ass. If you feel the need to add that to everything you post, then I feel the need to avoid wasting further time and effort on replying to you.
I'm sorry that I sound like a pompous jack-ass. I do, however, find a bit of humor in that usual label applied to media critiques of the president. It seems to be a dogmatic, knee-jerk response to anything that doesn't laud the president with praise. I admit, that you have not used that line with me yet, so I apologize that you felt I was directing it towards you. As I mentioned above in a previous post, none of my discussion/questions are meant to be smartarse or personal.
That said, I think a few of your remarks "people need to understand that", "Oh, and if you ask the right military people" or "I suggest you look at..." implied that there was something that I, or the American public, did not get that you did. I am fully aware of the gravity of the situation, the commitment required and the tactics involved on both sides.
I too, feel the need to avoid further replies because we both seem to be set in our opinions of the current situation.
And the quote was in response to a serviceman's question of how long the unit would have to be deployed. Rumsfeld further elaborated on the term of the war which is that snippit of the quote.
-
There IS plenty that the general public doesn't get about Iraq. Mostly, they get NONE of the success stories. The mainstream media doesn't tell you about ANY of it.
They tell you in a little snippet about a Navy Seal getting killed. They DON'T tell you that the same group of Navy Seals has killed hundreds of insurgents, destroyed dozens of weapons caches, or protected several Iraqi officials working on getting Iraq under control. NONE of that gets through to the general public. You ONLY hear that if you know people in the military (a Seal I know on Team Deka brought me a video they produced in Afghanistan because the media NEVER ONCE reported on ANY of their successes), or make an effort to look for it.
They'll tell you a helicopter crashed or might have been shot down. They WON'T tell you that special operatinos groups have been killing terrorists and insurgents coming in from Iran, Syria, and Jordan by the GROSS. They won't tell you about the roads littered with burned out vehicles and dead bodies of the outsiders coming in to cause trouble.
They show you a video that the insurgents gave them that shows an insurgent sniper killing a soldier. But they won't show you the videos of military snipers killing insurgents.
Hell, they'll even publish the lies of supposed soldiers who are at best lying about what they did do in Iraq, and at worst didn't even go to Iraq. But they sure as Hell won't publish anything from those who go back for tour after tour, and reup because they see the progress and believe it can work and can be won.
The thing the general public doesn't get about Iraq is easily quantified. It's called good news and success stories. If you were to have asked a thousand voters at the polls yesterday what good news they'd seen about Iraq, 999 would have said none.
If you think there's nothing that the average citizen of the general public doesn't know about Iraq, you're sadly mistaken.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There IS plenty that the general public doesn't get about Iraq. Mostly, they get NONE of the success stories. The mainstream media doesn't tell you about ANY of it.
They tell you in a little snippet about a Navy Seal getting killed. They DON'T tell you that the same group of Navy Seals has killed hundreds of insurgents, destroyed dozens of weapons caches, or protected several Iraqi officials working on getting Iraq under control. NONE of that gets through to the general public. You ONLY hear that if you know people in the military (a Seal I know on Team Deka brought me a video they produced in Afghanistan because the media NEVER ONCE reported on ANY of their successes), or make an effort to look for it.
They'll tell you a helicopter crashed or might have been shot down. They WON'T tell you that special operatinos groups have been killing terrorists and insurgents coming in from Iran, Syria, and Jordan by the GROSS. They won't tell you about the roads littered with burned out vehicles and dead bodies of the outsiders coming in to cause trouble.
They show you a video that the insurgents gave them that shows an insurgent sniper killing a soldier. But they won't show you the videos of military snipers killing insurgents.
Hell, they'll even publish the lies of supposed soldiers who are at best lying about what they did do in Iraq, and at worst didn't even go to Iraq. But they sure as Hell won't publish anything from those who go back for tour after tour, and reup because they see the progress and believe it can work and can be won.
The thing the general public doesn't get about Iraq is easily quantified. It's called good news and success stories. If you were to have asked a thousand voters at the polls yesterday what good news they'd seen about Iraq, 999 would have said none.
If you think there's nothing that the average citizen of the general public doesn't know about Iraq, you're sadly mistaken.
it's not like the administration has been holding any of these stories in our faces...sure they "say" that we are having successes...but why isnt tony snow highlighting them?
who has the burden of proof? is there a reason that bush hasnt been able to sell it?
the perception might be that there arent as many as they want us to believe.
i think that is why.
-
Originally posted by Squire
Is it just me, or is everybody else beyond tired of the term "assymetrical warfare" like its some kind of new invention?
Its nothing more than any "indirect" tactic or strategy against an enemy, and its been around since men were fighting with animal bones and rocks.
Lets give it a rest. War is war, and your enemy will ALWAYS look for a way to hurt you by any means possible, be they a state, or non-state group, army, terrorist, insurgent et al.
Next somebody will be announcing a new kind of warfare, where these circular things called "wheels" are being employed as "force multipliers".
Can we also dump the term "warfighting" while we are at it?