dutchie
Dec 20th, 2004, 12:45 AM
Don Rumsfeld has his letters of condoleance signed by a machine.
Talk about respect for the ultimate sacrifice... :Blbl:
Talk about respect for the ultimate sacrifice... :Blbl:
View Full Version : Honouring the rememberance...
dutchie
Dec 20th, 2004, 3:47 AM
Article here (http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Hackworth_112304,00.html) :
November 23, 2004
Donald Rumsfeld - who's known as a people-eating systems man - has a long history that shows he prefers technology to humans. Certainly as SecDef he's always gone for high-tech military gear rather than giving the boots on the ground max priority when it comes to the basics: armored vehicles and vests, sufficient ammo and all the other vital stuff that helps soldiers make it through the Valley of Death.
His beloved shock-and-awe whiz-bang wonder weapons worked well enough initially in Afghanistan and Iraq, but as we saw on the tube last week, we're once again back to the age-old struggle of man against man - with grunts, not machines, taking and holding ground.
And now, apparently, Rumsfeld's obsession with machines and their efficiency has translated into his using one to replace his own John Hancock on KIA (killed in action) letters to parents and spouses. Two Pentagon-based colonels, who've both insisted on anonymity to protect their careers, have indignantly reported that the SecDef has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself.
When I went to Jim Turner, a good man saddled with a tough job as one of Rumsfeld's flacks at the Pentagon, for a confirmation or a denial, he said, "Rumsfeld signs the letters himself."
I then went to about a dozen next-of-kin of American soldiers KIA in Iraq. Most agreed with the colonels' accusations and said they'd noticed and been insulted by the machine-driven signature. One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the SecDef could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son's letter. Several also felt compelled to tell me that the letter they received from George Bush also looked as though it was not signed personally by the president.
Dr. Ted Smith, whose son Eric was among the first 100 killed in Iraq, notes that the letter he received "from the commander in chief was signed with a thick, green marking pen. I thought it was stamped then and do even now. He had time for golf and the ranch but not enough to sign a decent signature with a pen for his beloved hero soldiers. I was going to send the letter back but did not. I am sorry I didn't."
Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: "My son wasn't a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren't interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature - it's a slap in the face, don't you think?"
Probably. I have devoted so much of my later life crusading to save soldiers from uncaring generals and politicians and bureaucrats, who tend so easily to view these kids - who are rarely their own flesh and blood - as abstract pawns in a virtual game of chess, because I was there. I stood and was counted, and I will never forget the pain when I signed KIA letters in Korea and Vietnam. I would choke up as I signed them - I could see the boys' faces, their cocky smiles, their muddy soldier suits. Each signing reinforced the awesome responsibility I carried as a leader to be as protective as possible about the young lives entrusted to me.
After I talked with the nearest and dearest of the KIA, I called Turner back and told him there was evidence that Rumsfeld's signature was in fact machine-produced. I asked him to double-check, and he promised to get me the straight skinny by my deadline. But late Friday I received a typical Pentagon duck-and-dodge e-mail: "Regret to say I have not been able to get a response as of COB (close of business) today..."
Throughout World War II, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall made sure that President Franklin Roosevelt was briefed in detail on the number of soldiers who had fallen. FDR, incidentally, probably wanted to know. He had sons who were serving.
I suspect that Sue Niederer and the other kin are on target about how not signing the KIA letters helps keep the commander in chief and the SecDef detached from the consequences of a nasty war and its messy human fall-out.
November 23, 2004
Donald Rumsfeld - who's known as a people-eating systems man - has a long history that shows he prefers technology to humans. Certainly as SecDef he's always gone for high-tech military gear rather than giving the boots on the ground max priority when it comes to the basics: armored vehicles and vests, sufficient ammo and all the other vital stuff that helps soldiers make it through the Valley of Death.
His beloved shock-and-awe whiz-bang wonder weapons worked well enough initially in Afghanistan and Iraq, but as we saw on the tube last week, we're once again back to the age-old struggle of man against man - with grunts, not machines, taking and holding ground.
And now, apparently, Rumsfeld's obsession with machines and their efficiency has translated into his using one to replace his own John Hancock on KIA (killed in action) letters to parents and spouses. Two Pentagon-based colonels, who've both insisted on anonymity to protect their careers, have indignantly reported that the SecDef has relinquished this sacred duty to a signature device rather than signing the sad documents himself.
When I went to Jim Turner, a good man saddled with a tough job as one of Rumsfeld's flacks at the Pentagon, for a confirmation or a denial, he said, "Rumsfeld signs the letters himself."
I then went to about a dozen next-of-kin of American soldiers KIA in Iraq. Most agreed with the colonels' accusations and said they'd noticed and been insulted by the machine-driven signature. One father bitterly commented that he thought it was a shame that the SecDef could keep his squash schedule but not find the time to sign his dead son's letter. Several also felt compelled to tell me that the letter they received from George Bush also looked as though it was not signed personally by the president.
Dr. Ted Smith, whose son Eric was among the first 100 killed in Iraq, notes that the letter he received "from the commander in chief was signed with a thick, green marking pen. I thought it was stamped then and do even now. He had time for golf and the ranch but not enough to sign a decent signature with a pen for his beloved hero soldiers. I was going to send the letter back but did not. I am sorry I didn't."
Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: "My son wasn't a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren't interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature - it's a slap in the face, don't you think?"
Probably. I have devoted so much of my later life crusading to save soldiers from uncaring generals and politicians and bureaucrats, who tend so easily to view these kids - who are rarely their own flesh and blood - as abstract pawns in a virtual game of chess, because I was there. I stood and was counted, and I will never forget the pain when I signed KIA letters in Korea and Vietnam. I would choke up as I signed them - I could see the boys' faces, their cocky smiles, their muddy soldier suits. Each signing reinforced the awesome responsibility I carried as a leader to be as protective as possible about the young lives entrusted to me.
After I talked with the nearest and dearest of the KIA, I called Turner back and told him there was evidence that Rumsfeld's signature was in fact machine-produced. I asked him to double-check, and he promised to get me the straight skinny by my deadline. But late Friday I received a typical Pentagon duck-and-dodge e-mail: "Regret to say I have not been able to get a response as of COB (close of business) today..."
Throughout World War II, Army Chief of Staff George Marshall made sure that President Franklin Roosevelt was briefed in detail on the number of soldiers who had fallen. FDR, incidentally, probably wanted to know. He had sons who were serving.
I suspect that Sue Niederer and the other kin are on target about how not signing the KIA letters helps keep the commander in chief and the SecDef detached from the consequences of a nasty war and its messy human fall-out.
dutchie
Dec 20th, 2004, 3:52 AM
....and here: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4110091.stm)
Rumsfeld faces Iraq letters row
Rumsfeld has been criticised for his handling of the Iraq war
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pledged to personally sign letters of condolence to the families of American soldiers killed in action.
He spoke shortly after his admission that he had used a machine to sign letters to relatives of more than 1,000 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr Rumsfeld is facing growing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans who are questioning his record in Iraq.
He was given a public grilling from his own troops earlier this month.
During his visit to a US base in Kuwait, American soldiers alleged they had used scrap metal to armour vehicles.
'An insult'
In a statement to the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes, Mr Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he had not personally signed the letters of condolence.
"While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter," Mr Rumsfeld's statement said.
"I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognise and honour their personal loss."
Several families of US soldiers killed overseas said that the machine-signed letters reflected a lack of respect for their losses.
"To me it's an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq," soldier Ivan Medina - whose twin brother Irving was killed in Iraq last summer - told Stars and Stripes.
The row has led to fresh debates among lawmakers over whether Mr Rumsfeld - whose handling of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have come under close scrutiny - should step down.
'Great confidence'
The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Washington says senior Republicans have spent the past few days openly questioning President George W Bush's decision to keep Mr Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.
They claim the defence secretary has to answer for a number of major mistakes made in Iraq, our correspondent adds.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, told CBS's Face the Nation he had "no confidence" in Mr Rumsfeld.
"This issue of the secretary of defence not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me," he said, noting that President Bush did sign such letters himself.
But President Bush's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, said Mr Rumsfeld had the full support of the White House.
Mr Card told ABC's This Week that Mr Rumsfeld "is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him".
Most leading Republicans have said he should stay.
Rumsfeld faces Iraq letters row
Rumsfeld has been criticised for his handling of the Iraq war
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has pledged to personally sign letters of condolence to the families of American soldiers killed in action.
He spoke shortly after his admission that he had used a machine to sign letters to relatives of more than 1,000 troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr Rumsfeld is facing growing criticism from both Democrats and Republicans who are questioning his record in Iraq.
He was given a public grilling from his own troops earlier this month.
During his visit to a US base in Kuwait, American soldiers alleged they had used scrap metal to armour vehicles.
'An insult'
In a statement to the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes, Mr Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he had not personally signed the letters of condolence.
"While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter," Mr Rumsfeld's statement said.
"I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognise and honour their personal loss."
Several families of US soldiers killed overseas said that the machine-signed letters reflected a lack of respect for their losses.
"To me it's an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq," soldier Ivan Medina - whose twin brother Irving was killed in Iraq last summer - told Stars and Stripes.
The row has led to fresh debates among lawmakers over whether Mr Rumsfeld - whose handling of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath have come under close scrutiny - should step down.
'Great confidence'
The BBC's Michael Buchanan in Washington says senior Republicans have spent the past few days openly questioning President George W Bush's decision to keep Mr Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.
They claim the defence secretary has to answer for a number of major mistakes made in Iraq, our correspondent adds.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, told CBS's Face the Nation he had "no confidence" in Mr Rumsfeld.
"This issue of the secretary of defence not personally signing the letters is just astounding to me," he said, noting that President Bush did sign such letters himself.
But President Bush's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, said Mr Rumsfeld had the full support of the White House.
Mr Card told ABC's This Week that Mr Rumsfeld "is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him".
Most leading Republicans have said he should stay.
substand
Dec 20th, 2004, 12:32 PM
Do we know if its pretty common precendent that Secys of Defense do this all the time?
DontBeAfraid
Dec 20th, 2004, 12:50 PM
Its not common subs.
substand
Dec 20th, 2004, 12:56 PM
ok, i was just wondering. if it was, the problem would only be deeper than rumsfeld.
dutchie
Dec 21st, 2004, 12:52 AM
I find it amazing that just 2 members care to react to this AT ALL...
substand
Dec 21st, 2004, 12:16 PM
Well, I was thinking that some ink and a name doesn't really mean much in the grand scope of the matter... its not like it brings back your son or daughter or father or husband or wife or mother, or even consoles you... It doesn't make one damn bit of difference and the press is playing like it does, or like they care (which makes me mad). But the lack of it matters (not saying that sarcastically). Funny how that works...
Its becoming more and more clear when they highlight these little things that they do not care about the soldiers without armor or the dead ones or the family and friends of dead soldiers. Some of them have been newsworthy, but all of them, newsworthy or not, have been attacks on Rumsfeld. Just reading story after story, thats the impression I get. I don't care that they criticize him or the government, but its like they step out of their way to do things, ask questions, or find stories that make Rumsfeld look bad (and by extension Bush, whom I would assume is who they ultimately want).
I mean, when you think of all the investigation it took to get this story. When it boils down to it, I dunno. I'm mad at Rumsfeld for being callous, cold, and retarded... and I'm mad at the press for what I perceive as using people's plights and emotions for their personal crusade against Rumsfeld.
It would have been nice though, if he had taken the time.
I think Rumsfeld should resign. He's just becoming cannon fodder for the press and too much of a political liability for Bush in general. Let the press win thier witchhunt on him and move on.
Even if he's the best secretary of defense we ever had, its not worth the political capital to keep him.
Its becoming more and more clear when they highlight these little things that they do not care about the soldiers without armor or the dead ones or the family and friends of dead soldiers. Some of them have been newsworthy, but all of them, newsworthy or not, have been attacks on Rumsfeld. Just reading story after story, thats the impression I get. I don't care that they criticize him or the government, but its like they step out of their way to do things, ask questions, or find stories that make Rumsfeld look bad (and by extension Bush, whom I would assume is who they ultimately want).
I mean, when you think of all the investigation it took to get this story. When it boils down to it, I dunno. I'm mad at Rumsfeld for being callous, cold, and retarded... and I'm mad at the press for what I perceive as using people's plights and emotions for their personal crusade against Rumsfeld.
It would have been nice though, if he had taken the time.
I think Rumsfeld should resign. He's just becoming cannon fodder for the press and too much of a political liability for Bush in general. Let the press win thier witchhunt on him and move on.
Even if he's the best secretary of defense we ever had, its not worth the political capital to keep him.
dutchie
Dec 22nd, 2004, 3:05 AM
Heh, I'm not even saying he has to go, and yeah, he's an easy target for press bashing, but - MAN - is this guy stupid?!? He's plain asking for it!! He DID rubber stamp the letters, while it would have been NO TROUBLE AT ALL signing the buggers!!
And yes, that IS cold. And the way he answered that question about military material (the armour being dragged off scrapheaps) was below all levels of decency..
What irritated me most is the disrespect. While he might be the best secretary of defense your country ever had (what defines "best"?) he is absolutely lacking in the social graces. He shows off a lack of respect and interest in the very people that do his dirty work for him. To him they're obviously no more than gun meat. I can imagine (as a father) what it would feel like when (maybe) your (only) son, in whom you had invested so much love, energy and pride, was killed in action and you would get thanked with a rubber stamped letter.
How could this disrespect ever be ignored in the media, I ask you?
And yes, that IS cold. And the way he answered that question about military material (the armour being dragged off scrapheaps) was below all levels of decency..
What irritated me most is the disrespect. While he might be the best secretary of defense your country ever had (what defines "best"?) he is absolutely lacking in the social graces. He shows off a lack of respect and interest in the very people that do his dirty work for him. To him they're obviously no more than gun meat. I can imagine (as a father) what it would feel like when (maybe) your (only) son, in whom you had invested so much love, energy and pride, was killed in action and you would get thanked with a rubber stamped letter.
How could this disrespect ever be ignored in the media, I ask you?
substand
Dec 22nd, 2004, 3:18 AM
What irritated me most is the disrespect. While he might be the best secretary of defense your country ever had (what defines "best"?) he is absolutely lacking in the social graces.
I'm not saying he is the best, but rather, even if he is the best he should leave.. meant purely as a hypothetical, no reality attached. I don't know if he is the best, the worst, or anywhere in between. I think some of his ideas are good, but I can hardly say he is the only one who has the ideas that I think are good, simply because all of the ones I've thought are good (that I am aware of) I have heard being promoted elsewhere.
How could this disrespect ever be ignored in the media, I ask you?
I guess I'm just so mad at both sides that there is no one to blame for me. I'm mad at him and I'm mad at the media. I shouldn't say that it should be ignored, I guess I just mean to say that the media would have a whole lot more credibility with me if it wasn't so obvious they are just doing things like this as a witchhunt... I am pissed with them because they don't do it out of respect or care for the soldiers or their parents, but only to put Rumsfeld down. Thus, they are using the pain and suffering of people for their own agenda... and that agenda is not particularly helpful to any position but their own, I guess.
My feelings are illogical, since the end result is the same. But every now and then motive counts, I suppose.
I'm not saying he is the best, but rather, even if he is the best he should leave.. meant purely as a hypothetical, no reality attached. I don't know if he is the best, the worst, or anywhere in between. I think some of his ideas are good, but I can hardly say he is the only one who has the ideas that I think are good, simply because all of the ones I've thought are good (that I am aware of) I have heard being promoted elsewhere.
How could this disrespect ever be ignored in the media, I ask you?
I guess I'm just so mad at both sides that there is no one to blame for me. I'm mad at him and I'm mad at the media. I shouldn't say that it should be ignored, I guess I just mean to say that the media would have a whole lot more credibility with me if it wasn't so obvious they are just doing things like this as a witchhunt... I am pissed with them because they don't do it out of respect or care for the soldiers or their parents, but only to put Rumsfeld down. Thus, they are using the pain and suffering of people for their own agenda... and that agenda is not particularly helpful to any position but their own, I guess.
My feelings are illogical, since the end result is the same. But every now and then motive counts, I suppose.
VegasRonin
Dec 22nd, 2004, 10:26 AM
Heh, I'm not even saying he has to go, and yeah, he's an easy target for press bashing, but - MAN - is this guy stupid?!? He's plain asking for it!! He DID rubber stamp the letters, while it would have been NO TROUBLE AT ALL signing the buggers!! These letters should absolutely have been personally signed by Rumsfeld. I can, however, see why he utilized a machine. I have 2 awards that are signed, by then, Secretary of Defense (Embarrassed to say, I don't know who that was; as I'm at the office right now and not at home). I imagine Rumsfeld is signing his siggy hundreds of times per month, maybe even thousands. Still, my opening statement holds. The word is priority!
Skippy
Dec 23rd, 2004, 7:24 AM
When the Tigers Broke Free!
There's a line in Pink Floyd's The Wall that mentions this exact same thing, but it was King George signing with his own rubber stamp.
It's a very tacky thing to do, and there is no excuse for it. But, for Rumsfeld to sign these letters all the time would surely make his arm go numb with carpal tunnel syndrome.
There's a line in Pink Floyd's The Wall that mentions this exact same thing, but it was King George signing with his own rubber stamp.
It's a very tacky thing to do, and there is no excuse for it. But, for Rumsfeld to sign these letters all the time would surely make his arm go numb with carpal tunnel syndrome.
dutchie
Dec 23rd, 2004, 7:38 AM
But, for Rumsfeld to sign these letters all the time would surely make his arm go numb with carpal tunnel syndrome.
Heh, I once signed 1,700 letters in ONE SINGLE DAY... Don certainly had a lot more time to sign them than I did, and I survived without a scratch too...
Heh, I once signed 1,700 letters in ONE SINGLE DAY... Don certainly had a lot more time to sign them than I did, and I survived without a scratch too...
Brandon101
Dec 23rd, 2004, 10:51 PM
I'm surprised anyone is surprised that the government doesn't give a shit about an individual. I mean come on, the only thing they did was throw their life away for what they believe. Big deal right?
dutchie
Dec 24th, 2004, 12:42 AM
Well, I can appreciate the cynicism in there, but that's my point really. The whole thing breathes disrespect towards the military, indeed as if the only purpose for a soldier is to serve as cannon meat...
And no, I wasn't very surprised knowing a little more about Rumsfeld...
And no, I wasn't very surprised knowing a little more about Rumsfeld...
cwohardy
Dec 24th, 2004, 8:17 AM
As a currently active duty member of the Armed Forces I can not make a direct comment about Donald Rumsfield.
I can say that if my family received one of those letters, the least of their worries would be whether the signature is real or not.
I can say that if my family received one of those letters, the least of their worries would be whether the signature is real or not.
Emerald_Dragon
Dec 24th, 2004, 8:43 AM
>I am pissed with them because they don't do it out of respect or care for the soldiers or their parents, but only to put Rumsfeld down.
...maybe they're doing it, because its their only way of picking on the wall that protects the administration? if they can't say what they really mean, due to national security concerns, they can just try to make him look bad? just a thought.
same with that soldier commenting on using scrap metal, he didn't want to be treasonous or insubordinate, just wanted to be properly equipped to do his job. I don't know the full story, so if someone can fill in the blank...thanks.
...maybe they're doing it, because its their only way of picking on the wall that protects the administration? if they can't say what they really mean, due to national security concerns, they can just try to make him look bad? just a thought.
same with that soldier commenting on using scrap metal, he didn't want to be treasonous or insubordinate, just wanted to be properly equipped to do his job. I don't know the full story, so if someone can fill in the blank...thanks.
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 4:16 PM
I don't know the full story, so if someone can fill in the blank...thanks.
Basically, there was a reported who handed questions to some soldiers to ask, and rigged it so that his guys were called on. Thats it in a nutshell, I beleive.
Basically, there was a reported who handed questions to some soldiers to ask, and rigged it so that his guys were called on. Thats it in a nutshell, I beleive.
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 4:50 PM
So a reporter wrote the question..... Does that make it any less valid? If it wasnt a real concern of the soldiers do you think he would risk asking it? Would you want to up armor with scraps? Would you want your loved ones to?
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 5:06 PM
So a reporter wrote the question..... Does that make it any less valid? If it wasnt a real concern of the soldiers do you think he would risk asking it? Would you want to up armor with scraps? Would you want your loved ones to?
If it was a concern of the soldier's, one could likely assume that he would have asked it himself. And rigging the questions so he would get asked is another thing. There is also the fact that the news was old news and was being taken care of. There's also the question "if the humvees were meant to be armored, why weren't they built with armor?" (my idea is that some of them were meant to be and some weren't, and only since we realized the enemy tactic of using roadside bombs has it become imperitave to arm them).
If it was a concern of the soldier's he could and should have asked. But the question being planted, plus the rigging of calling on that soldier, makes me think poorly on the press and its motives. And I was never questioning the motive of the soldier, but that of the press.
If it was a concern of the soldier's, one could likely assume that he would have asked it himself. And rigging the questions so he would get asked is another thing. There is also the fact that the news was old news and was being taken care of. There's also the question "if the humvees were meant to be armored, why weren't they built with armor?" (my idea is that some of them were meant to be and some weren't, and only since we realized the enemy tactic of using roadside bombs has it become imperitave to arm them).
If it was a concern of the soldier's he could and should have asked. But the question being planted, plus the rigging of calling on that soldier, makes me think poorly on the press and its motives. And I was never questioning the motive of the soldier, but that of the press.
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 5:22 PM
The press wants us to know that our soldiers are using garbage for protectoin.... shame on the press.... The vehicles that were built witthout armor werent meant for war.... yet they were sent, probably to meet some number quota.
If a war was truely worthy of fighting then one administartion could spend its resources setting up for the war without the worry of the next administration discarding its legacy. That didnt happen here, we went unprepared because, and this may just be my opinion, the war wasnt needed.
If a war was truely worthy of fighting then one administartion could spend its resources setting up for the war without the worry of the next administration discarding its legacy. That didnt happen here, we went unprepared because, and this may just be my opinion, the war wasnt needed.
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 5:27 PM
oh, and having been in conferences, like that one, as a soldier I can tell you that asking questions of a "non-hooah" nature to people too far up in your chain of command is HIGHLY discouraged and usually gets you some punishment that doesnt involve any paperwork after the cameras have left the building.
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 6:42 PM
The press wants us to know that our soldiers are using garbage for protectoin
Again, it disturbs me because it is readily apparent that that is not the motive of press, as it was old news which was in the process of being rectified. It is clear the reporter was only trying to get a soldier to ask Rumsfeld the question, not to improve safety, or gain any addition information, but purely to make Rumsfeld look bad. The reporter had no reasonably inferred good intention as the one you mentioned, unless he was completely ignorant of the happenings surrounding and involving the question.
Again, it disturbs me because it is readily apparent that that is not the motive of press, as it was old news which was in the process of being rectified. It is clear the reporter was only trying to get a soldier to ask Rumsfeld the question, not to improve safety, or gain any addition information, but purely to make Rumsfeld look bad. The reporter had no reasonably inferred good intention as the one you mentioned, unless he was completely ignorant of the happenings surrounding and involving the question.
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 6:51 PM
The more attention we pay to this situation the faster it gets rectified..... Maybe Rumsfeld didnt know, Maybe if it was really being fixed then that might have been his answer.... His answer was "use what you've got". It wasnt one of his concerns until the press made him look bad.
GJ press for helping to protect our soldiers by asking questions that make leaders look bad and thereby forcing those leaders to respond with action(hopefully).
And again, the soldier must really be concerned about this himself or he wouldnt have dared to ask the question.
GJ press for helping to protect our soldiers by asking questions that make leaders look bad and thereby forcing those leaders to respond with action(hopefully).
And again, the soldier must really be concerned about this himself or he wouldnt have dared to ask the question.
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 7:02 PM
GJ press for helping to protect our soldiers by asking questions that make leaders look bad and thereby forcing those leaders to respond with action(hopefully).
Its not the questions I'm mad about. I dont know how else to explain it. The press were asking the same questions weeks, even months, before hand, and the government has been doing things about it.
Good for both of them. I'm glad our soldiers are getting better equipment. This case though, is a good example of the press asking such questions, not for the benefit of soldiers, but for a larger anti-bush agenda.
I applaud them for the good work they do, but to ask questions and plant stuff like this, it is NOT NEWS. It was NOT NEWS. It was purely a reporter doing SOMETHING BESIDES REPORTING.
Again, its partly illogical on my part, because the end result will be the same... but as I said, sometimes motive counts for something. And I can't stand it that this guy is trying to pose as if he cares about the troops when clearly he does not- unless he is ignorant of the facts, which one could reasonably assume he is not, considering the business he is in. And maybe he is truly concerned and ignorant of the facts. But if that is the case, then he is inept at his job and should probably be doing something else.
I don't know if you are trying to convince me that the reporter was doing good or supporting the troops or what... but I just don't see it.
You don't have to convince me that the end result is the same, as I've now admitted to it twice. It would take some convincing however, to tell me that the reporter has the best interests of the troops at heart, or that his "reporting" was not influenced by a different agenda.
Its not the questions I'm mad about. I dont know how else to explain it. The press were asking the same questions weeks, even months, before hand, and the government has been doing things about it.
Good for both of them. I'm glad our soldiers are getting better equipment. This case though, is a good example of the press asking such questions, not for the benefit of soldiers, but for a larger anti-bush agenda.
I applaud them for the good work they do, but to ask questions and plant stuff like this, it is NOT NEWS. It was NOT NEWS. It was purely a reporter doing SOMETHING BESIDES REPORTING.
Again, its partly illogical on my part, because the end result will be the same... but as I said, sometimes motive counts for something. And I can't stand it that this guy is trying to pose as if he cares about the troops when clearly he does not- unless he is ignorant of the facts, which one could reasonably assume he is not, considering the business he is in. And maybe he is truly concerned and ignorant of the facts. But if that is the case, then he is inept at his job and should probably be doing something else.
I don't know if you are trying to convince me that the reporter was doing good or supporting the troops or what... but I just don't see it.
You don't have to convince me that the end result is the same, as I've now admitted to it twice. It would take some convincing however, to tell me that the reporter has the best interests of the troops at heart, or that his "reporting" was not influenced by a different agenda.
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 7:31 PM
Well, the reporter is over there.... interacting with the troops. Maybe he was only concerned with his own safety.... Maybe he saw that NOTHING was really being done about the lack of armored vehicles and figured the right people didnt know. Maybe he just wanted rumsfeld to look bad.
Either way he wasnt the one who asked the question, a SOLDIER asked; Not a reporter, the reported just helped motivate him. So a reported helped a lowly specialist ask the secretary of defense why he isnt being taken care of. This is not normal and usually ill-adviced. The soldier must have trusted that the reported really cared so who are you to question the soldier? --- lol, See how I blurred the lines there? Its very similar to the bush supporters saying that if you dont support the war you dont support the troops. Well here we have a reporter making bush/co look really bad while his actions can only be seen as supporting the troops by those who blur the lines..... So you are done blurring the lines now subs?
Either way he wasnt the one who asked the question, a SOLDIER asked; Not a reporter, the reported just helped motivate him. So a reported helped a lowly specialist ask the secretary of defense why he isnt being taken care of. This is not normal and usually ill-adviced. The soldier must have trusted that the reported really cared so who are you to question the soldier? --- lol, See how I blurred the lines there? Its very similar to the bush supporters saying that if you dont support the war you dont support the troops. Well here we have a reporter making bush/co look really bad while his actions can only be seen as supporting the troops by those who blur the lines..... So you are done blurring the lines now subs?
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 7:44 PM
who are you to question the soldier? --- lol, See how I blurred the lines there?
You aren't blurring the lines. I wasn't questioning or mad at the question or the soldier. I was mad at the motivation of the journalist.
Its very similar to the bush supporters saying that if you dont support the war you dont support the troops. Well here we have a reporter making bush/co look really bad while his actions can only be seen as supporting the troops by those who blur the lines..... So you are done blurring the lines now subs?
I don't know where I was blurring the lines. But its nothing similar to me saying if you don't support the war you aren't supporting the troops, because I don't say it in the context most "bush supporters" say it.
If I were to say it, I'd confine it to those who "support the troops" but hope we lose. Thats a ludicrous position to take, and unfortunately many mad libs take it. I'm not sugguesting you are one of them who does, but just wishing to clarify any "blurring" you think I may have done...
You aren't blurring the lines. I wasn't questioning or mad at the question or the soldier. I was mad at the motivation of the journalist.
Its very similar to the bush supporters saying that if you dont support the war you dont support the troops. Well here we have a reporter making bush/co look really bad while his actions can only be seen as supporting the troops by those who blur the lines..... So you are done blurring the lines now subs?
I don't know where I was blurring the lines. But its nothing similar to me saying if you don't support the war you aren't supporting the troops, because I don't say it in the context most "bush supporters" say it.
If I were to say it, I'd confine it to those who "support the troops" but hope we lose. Thats a ludicrous position to take, and unfortunately many mad libs take it. I'm not sugguesting you are one of them who does, but just wishing to clarify any "blurring" you think I may have done...
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 8:09 PM
Who hopes we lose? Thats a serious accusation.
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 8:35 PM
Who hopes we lose? Thats a serious accusation.
Many looney leftists (I wouldn't think they are a majority) are calling for the "Iraqi resistance" to win (and thus, for the US to lose). Here is just a sample:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/11/hub_protesters_back_insurgency/
Many looney leftists (I wouldn't think they are a majority) are calling for the "Iraqi resistance" to win (and thus, for the US to lose). Here is just a sample:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/11/hub_protesters_back_insurgency/
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 9:51 PM
Thats another blurring of the lines..... They hope that we pull our troops out. Is that a loss? If so then what conditions must be met for victory to be declared?
Short of creating a police state in iraq and implanting every Iraqy with tracking chips we CAN NOT quell the "insurgents" who fight from their homes. Is that really a victory though?
Short of creating a police state in iraq and implanting every Iraqy with tracking chips we CAN NOT quell the "insurgents" who fight from their homes. Is that really a victory though?
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 11:10 PM
Thats another blurring of the lines..... They hope that we pull our troops out. Is that a loss? If so then what conditions must be met for victory to be declared?
Was I wrong about you? My God, whose side are you on DBA? Blurring the lines?
"All over Iraq, Shi'a and Sunni alike are struggling, are resisting, against the butchers who are occupying them," shouted Marta Rodriguez, an activist affiliated with the New England Committee to Defend Palestine. "And what we saw on Thursday is truly a sight to behold: thousands of beautiful Iraqi people breaking through the blockades of the murderous US troops, to give help to the people of Fallujah." ...
"Long live the iraqi resistance." .... "Victory for the Iraqi Resistance." ....
How can you blur that line? Murderous US troops? Butchers who are occupying them? Long live the resistance? There is no line which is capable of being blurred. If you are on the side of these nuts you are against the US, pure and simple.
They hope we LOSE, and that in doing so, we will pull our troops out. They do not hope we WIN and pull our troops out. They are clearly hoping the US will lose. That is not line blurring.
The conditions of pulling out our troops have been well established since the beginning: when Iraq is a democracy that is capable of defending itself against those foreigners and Saddamists and Islamist jihadists who are currently fighting against democracy.
Leaving on account of the "resistance" would be losing. We would simply have created a state which would be more apt to support international terrorism, even if it is less able to do so.
Was I wrong about you? My God, whose side are you on DBA? Blurring the lines?
"All over Iraq, Shi'a and Sunni alike are struggling, are resisting, against the butchers who are occupying them," shouted Marta Rodriguez, an activist affiliated with the New England Committee to Defend Palestine. "And what we saw on Thursday is truly a sight to behold: thousands of beautiful Iraqi people breaking through the blockades of the murderous US troops, to give help to the people of Fallujah." ...
"Long live the iraqi resistance." .... "Victory for the Iraqi Resistance." ....
How can you blur that line? Murderous US troops? Butchers who are occupying them? Long live the resistance? There is no line which is capable of being blurred. If you are on the side of these nuts you are against the US, pure and simple.
They hope we LOSE, and that in doing so, we will pull our troops out. They do not hope we WIN and pull our troops out. They are clearly hoping the US will lose. That is not line blurring.
The conditions of pulling out our troops have been well established since the beginning: when Iraq is a democracy that is capable of defending itself against those foreigners and Saddamists and Islamist jihadists who are currently fighting against democracy.
Leaving on account of the "resistance" would be losing. We would simply have created a state which would be more apt to support international terrorism, even if it is less able to do so.
DontBeAfraid
Dec 26th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Yes there are some nutz subs, I admit I only read the first paragraph and a half.
The conditions of pulling out our troops have been well established since the beginning: when Iraq is a democracy that is capable of defending itself against those foreigners and Saddamists and Islamist jihadists who are currently fighting against democracy.
There were never any conditions for victory and the conditions you just described are VERY subjective.
There are many democracies which couldnt be held to that standard (canada im looking at you).
The conditions of pulling out our troops have been well established since the beginning: when Iraq is a democracy that is capable of defending itself against those foreigners and Saddamists and Islamist jihadists who are currently fighting against democracy.
There were never any conditions for victory and the conditions you just described are VERY subjective.
There are many democracies which couldnt be held to that standard (canada im looking at you).
substand
Dec 26th, 2004, 11:55 PM
There were never any conditions for victory and the conditions you just described are VERY subjective.
There are many democracies which couldnt be held to that standard (canada im looking at you).
Perhaps there were no conditions made public... many have complained about the lack of an "exit strategy," but I think the two can and might very well be different.
While it might be said that Canada could not defend its democracy, versus, say an invasion by China, it can defend itself from a similar "insurgency" like that occurring in Iraq. It is clear that Canada spent the entire Cold War knowing that the US was doing the buildup and would defend them against Soviet invasion. But that is not the same thing as being able to defend itself versus an "insurgency" if its government were not stable. But its government is stable and well established, and that is where the difference between the standard I gave for Iraq and that of the "many democracies" you speak of. In essence, they have nothing to defend themselves from (in the arena we are talking about- situations similar to Iraq)
There are many democracies which couldnt be held to that standard (canada im looking at you).
Perhaps there were no conditions made public... many have complained about the lack of an "exit strategy," but I think the two can and might very well be different.
While it might be said that Canada could not defend its democracy, versus, say an invasion by China, it can defend itself from a similar "insurgency" like that occurring in Iraq. It is clear that Canada spent the entire Cold War knowing that the US was doing the buildup and would defend them against Soviet invasion. But that is not the same thing as being able to defend itself versus an "insurgency" if its government were not stable. But its government is stable and well established, and that is where the difference between the standard I gave for Iraq and that of the "many democracies" you speak of. In essence, they have nothing to defend themselves from (in the arena we are talking about- situations similar to Iraq)
DontBeAfraid
Dec 27th, 2004, 4:02 AM
The conditions you described are very subjective.... How much peace have we created in iraq? Are we closer or farther from our objective then when we started? A clean exit for us is all we can really hope for. That and the rest of the world realizing that we need help tracking what every person alive is doing.
Emerald_Dragon
Dec 27th, 2004, 1:04 PM
my $0.02
i agree with subs that the press is being anti-Bush. But that's only because I agree with Laz that the press are printing what sells, and not the truth. I also agree with DBA about his subjective victory conditions.
But well, the list of my disagreements with subs and Laz go much further. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, which would invalidate any arguements about be right and just, in Iraq.
It was the wrong path to go on and no matter how much "good" we try to associate with what we are doing there and how "right" we are for being there, it still does not change the fact that there were no WMDs to justify the invasion, Saddam was not part of what happened to us on 911, and the Al-Qaeda were not being safeguarded by SH. Which means we were lied to.
And further, i think Rummy slipped up when he alleged that Flight 93 was shot down...
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html
"
...
And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that.
...
"
i think he knows the real story and the official story, and well, pulled a Freudian. When you can't keep your lies straight, they're bound to catch up to you.
i agree with subs that the press is being anti-Bush. But that's only because I agree with Laz that the press are printing what sells, and not the truth. I also agree with DBA about his subjective victory conditions.
But well, the list of my disagreements with subs and Laz go much further. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, which would invalidate any arguements about be right and just, in Iraq.
It was the wrong path to go on and no matter how much "good" we try to associate with what we are doing there and how "right" we are for being there, it still does not change the fact that there were no WMDs to justify the invasion, Saddam was not part of what happened to us on 911, and the Al-Qaeda were not being safeguarded by SH. Which means we were lied to.
And further, i think Rummy slipped up when he alleged that Flight 93 was shot down...
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0412/24/nfcnn.01.html
"
...
And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that.
...
"
i think he knows the real story and the official story, and well, pulled a Freudian. When you can't keep your lies straight, they're bound to catch up to you.
Mattlad75
Dec 28th, 2004, 6:14 PM
The press have alot to answer for in this situation, as in many others. Im not excusing Rumsfeld, i dont REALLY know what sort of guy he is in terms of the work he does, in other words does he do a good enough job in the end or not. I dont know, what i do know is having a computer sign all those letters to the families of the deceased was not a good idea and was very insensitive. On top of that my gut feeling is that Rumfeld is a slimball.
substand
Dec 28th, 2004, 9:58 PM
The conditions you described are very subjective....
They are subjective in the sense that one could always come up with an excuse to stay, but they are not subjective in the sense that they offer a goal. When the iraqi government is established and no longer feels they need our help is when we know we have met the objective. (or we get sick of being there and decide to leave, if we want to leave before they want us to, but i wouldn't call that meeting our objectives)
we may have other objectives as well, but as I see them currently (and I am not the one who makes these decisions, to be sure) we have not met them, and what I said above would be meeting them.
How much peace have we created in iraq? Are we closer or farther from our objective then when we started?
I'm not going to say we've created any peace in Iraq, except for the peace that comes from peoples' knowledge that Hussein can no longer rob and rape and kill anyone he or his sons desire. That is not peaceful enough, yet, though, because there is still lawlessness going on in some parts of the country. I would not say it is any worse than Saddam overall, but certainly it is worse in some respects, and better in others. However, I am confident that in the end, it will be much better than when Saddam and Co. were in power.
That and the rest of the world realizing that we need help tracking what every person alive is doing.
I'm just not at all sure where that is coming from or in relation to.
They are subjective in the sense that one could always come up with an excuse to stay, but they are not subjective in the sense that they offer a goal. When the iraqi government is established and no longer feels they need our help is when we know we have met the objective. (or we get sick of being there and decide to leave, if we want to leave before they want us to, but i wouldn't call that meeting our objectives)
we may have other objectives as well, but as I see them currently (and I am not the one who makes these decisions, to be sure) we have not met them, and what I said above would be meeting them.
How much peace have we created in iraq? Are we closer or farther from our objective then when we started?
I'm not going to say we've created any peace in Iraq, except for the peace that comes from peoples' knowledge that Hussein can no longer rob and rape and kill anyone he or his sons desire. That is not peaceful enough, yet, though, because there is still lawlessness going on in some parts of the country. I would not say it is any worse than Saddam overall, but certainly it is worse in some respects, and better in others. However, I am confident that in the end, it will be much better than when Saddam and Co. were in power.
That and the rest of the world realizing that we need help tracking what every person alive is doing.
I'm just not at all sure where that is coming from or in relation to.
Emerald_Dragon
Dec 31st, 2004, 12:54 PM
>On top of that my gut feeling is that Rumfeld is a slimball.
go with your gut until evidence shows you otherwise.
i really want you guys to see this video by the BBC. Its about Rummy and Cheney and their Straussian views. I think subs mentioned something about them being followers of Leo Strauss. I didn't know exactly what he meant until I saw this video...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
go with your gut until evidence shows you otherwise.
i really want you guys to see this video by the BBC. Its about Rummy and Cheney and their Straussian views. I think subs mentioned something about them being followers of Leo Strauss. I didn't know exactly what he meant until I saw this video...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
dutchie
Jan 3rd, 2005, 5:35 AM
From this dicussion one question keeps creeping up with me...
Where is all this leading to?!? What kind of future are you guys thinking about for this troubled country called Iraq? And I am NOT talking about bloodthirsty maniacs from either sides, but about the average Iraqi Joe. When a new government has been elected by the people, and it's not what the US had in mind, will we stay there until the next election? Or will we just disqualify the result and have a re-election? What DO you guys really think will happen in the next two or three years?!?
Where is all this leading to?!? What kind of future are you guys thinking about for this troubled country called Iraq? And I am NOT talking about bloodthirsty maniacs from either sides, but about the average Iraqi Joe. When a new government has been elected by the people, and it's not what the US had in mind, will we stay there until the next election? Or will we just disqualify the result and have a re-election? What DO you guys really think will happen in the next two or three years?!?
cwohardy
Jan 3rd, 2005, 7:42 AM
As a soldier I don't hold out for a very bright future as far as our military in Iraq is concerned. I feel we will be pressured to stay regardless of the outcome of the elections. I support our overthrow of that madman regardless of whether he had WMD's or not. Unfortunately, I don't see our ideas of democracy every being put into place in that country.
The average Iraqi Joe wants what all Joe's want, freedom to live their lives as they please. But do they have the faintest concept of the type of society/government required to bring about even a faux form of freedom? I think not. Do they have any clue of the sacrifices required to live in a "free" society?
I don't believe they even want the kind of freedom we are trying to offer. The predominant culture in that part of the world relies heavily on some form of a religion controlling their government. That is in stark opposition to the current form of democracy we live under.
The current struggle between the forms of Islam we see being fought over in Iraq are different in only 1 way from the fights we ourselves have now in this country between the mainstream Christians/right wing/atheist name your religion here.
They are willing to kill/murder anyone and everyone to have their pet idealogy in power.
I believe that if the Jan elections are considered "fair" after they are over, we should withdraw our military. We have freed them from a dictator, I believe it is now up to them to get off their butts and do something for themselves. They have the resources, via their oil supply, to rebuild. Let them reap what they sow from their elections.
I write this from the perspective of someone who could be sent to Iraq and die there so that they could possibly be free. I know first hand that the vast majority of soldiers believe in what we are doing and I also know that most of us, while skeptical of the outcome, have not given up hope of providing freedom to these people. If they choose through free elections to have some form of government I don't agree with, SO BE IT!!!!!! At least I know was part of giving them that choice, something they did not have before.
okay soapbox rant over.
The average Iraqi Joe wants what all Joe's want, freedom to live their lives as they please. But do they have the faintest concept of the type of society/government required to bring about even a faux form of freedom? I think not. Do they have any clue of the sacrifices required to live in a "free" society?
I don't believe they even want the kind of freedom we are trying to offer. The predominant culture in that part of the world relies heavily on some form of a religion controlling their government. That is in stark opposition to the current form of democracy we live under.
The current struggle between the forms of Islam we see being fought over in Iraq are different in only 1 way from the fights we ourselves have now in this country between the mainstream Christians/right wing/atheist name your religion here.
They are willing to kill/murder anyone and everyone to have their pet idealogy in power.
I believe that if the Jan elections are considered "fair" after they are over, we should withdraw our military. We have freed them from a dictator, I believe it is now up to them to get off their butts and do something for themselves. They have the resources, via their oil supply, to rebuild. Let them reap what they sow from their elections.
I write this from the perspective of someone who could be sent to Iraq and die there so that they could possibly be free. I know first hand that the vast majority of soldiers believe in what we are doing and I also know that most of us, while skeptical of the outcome, have not given up hope of providing freedom to these people. If they choose through free elections to have some form of government I don't agree with, SO BE IT!!!!!! At least I know was part of giving them that choice, something they did not have before.
okay soapbox rant over.
dutchie
Jan 4th, 2005, 4:36 AM
OK. Good post. In short you're saying that whatever the Iraqis choose, it's OK and then we should leave them to do with their country whatever it is they want to do... And you have your doubts about what these Arab peoples would rather have for a government; some fundy religion driven clan, or a democratic rule, where religion and state affairs are strictly separated.
Especially that last thing is something that's on my mind too: I don't believe for one minute that the Iraqi people is culturally READY for a democracy. They're so used to being oppressed by either a tirannic or religious regime, it has become a fundamental NEED for them. They'll gladly exchange Saddam for religious tiranny. At least that's my opinion, based upon what's going on in most of the surrounding Arab countries.
Now you said, we should leave after elections, regardless of the outcome. Yes, we should, I agree. But... WILL WE LEAVE??
Especially that last thing is something that's on my mind too: I don't believe for one minute that the Iraqi people is culturally READY for a democracy. They're so used to being oppressed by either a tirannic or religious regime, it has become a fundamental NEED for them. They'll gladly exchange Saddam for religious tiranny. At least that's my opinion, based upon what's going on in most of the surrounding Arab countries.
Now you said, we should leave after elections, regardless of the outcome. Yes, we should, I agree. But... WILL WE LEAVE??
Skippy
Jan 4th, 2005, 7:03 AM
Now you said, we should leave after elections, regardless of the outcome. Yes, we should, I agree. But... WILL WE LEAVE??
If the reason that the US invaded Iraq was to bring democracy, then it would make complete sense for them to leave. But democracy was always an afterthought, never the reason for invasion. With the US building a huge permanent military base, I think our great grandchildren will see the US still in Iraq (losing).
If the reason that the US invaded Iraq was to bring democracy, then it would make complete sense for them to leave. But democracy was always an afterthought, never the reason for invasion. With the US building a huge permanent military base, I think our great grandchildren will see the US still in Iraq (losing).
dutchie
Jan 4th, 2005, 9:23 AM
Well then, what WAS the reason, according to you? Saddam? Oil? Vengeance? All of the above? Something else?
Skippy
Jan 4th, 2005, 9:59 AM
Well then, what WAS the reason, according to you? Saddam? Oil? Vengeance? All of the above? Something else?
Let's see, I don't remember Colin Powell making a case at the UN about bringing democracy to Iraq...he seemed more concerned with Weapons of Multiple Deceptions at the time.
Oil? Sure, but not the main reason, that's just spoils of war stuff. More likely is was to get a permanent base in Iraq, which they couldn't do during the first gulf war. So, we can only come to one conclusion, this war was waged on behalf of Israel, and to help them combat their enemies.
As for building a democracy, they are going to have a difficult time convincing people who look at history to believe that...the US is in the business of installing dictators, like Saddam, the Shah, Pinochet, etc..
Let's see, I don't remember Colin Powell making a case at the UN about bringing democracy to Iraq...he seemed more concerned with Weapons of Multiple Deceptions at the time.
Oil? Sure, but not the main reason, that's just spoils of war stuff. More likely is was to get a permanent base in Iraq, which they couldn't do during the first gulf war. So, we can only come to one conclusion, this war was waged on behalf of Israel, and to help them combat their enemies.
As for building a democracy, they are going to have a difficult time convincing people who look at history to believe that...the US is in the business of installing dictators, like Saddam, the Shah, Pinochet, etc..
dutchie
Jan 6th, 2005, 7:22 AM
Usually those are the best in handling economic interests, that's true.
IN the case of Iraq, however - I don't think the USA has a choice. The people of Iraq will choose, and whatever the outcome the US will have to accept that.
Question remains whether the Iraqis will really go for a democracy.. I doubt it.
IN the case of Iraq, however - I don't think the USA has a choice. The people of Iraq will choose, and whatever the outcome the US will have to accept that.
Question remains whether the Iraqis will really go for a democracy.. I doubt it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.