JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,522
Your man changed the topic, and he got outed. Go talk to Publius, not those who corrected him.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your man changed the topic, and he got outed. Go talk to Publius, not those who corrected him.
Your man changed the topic, and he got outed. Go talk to Publius, not those who corrected him.
You took my quote and used it out of context.
A man who blames his actions on others in an effort to show superiority does the opposite and shows weakness.
No interest in discussing with you anymore Starkey.
It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -Don Rumsfeld in Feb. 2003
10 years ealier it lasted 6 hours.
There was reason to believe that if they had followed the rules of war, it would not have lasted too long.
But, alas, they proved to the world that they are not human.
Eric Shinseki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the U.S. would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation.[4] From then on, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned
So then I guess Obama is in agreement with Rumsfeld seeing as he, too believes that nothing close to hundreds of thousands of troops are necessary for the "postwar" occupation of Iraq.
Why did you post this rediculous quote? Do you belkieve we should have several hundred thousands off troops over there for years to come?
Eric Shinseki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the U.S. would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation.[4] From then on, Shinseki's influence on the Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly waned
So then I guess Obama is in agreement with Rumsfeld seeing as he, too believes that nothing close to hundreds of thousands of troops are necessary for the "postwar" occupation of Iraq.
Why did you post this rediculous quote? Do you belkieve we should have several hundred thousands off troops over there for years to come?
The quote applies to the post invasion occupation and you know it. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration openly stated that we did not need any more forces than the invasion force because "we would be treated as liberators"
Jarhead and Publius1787 could support their statements that Rummy is no different than the other guys mentioned.
They can't, though. No, wait a minute. They could make a comparison of Rumsfeld with McNamara. They both were war criminals.
No...
Jarhead and Publius are well aware that all adversaries have their surprises...and the truth is...Iraq did the unthinkable. They turned their hospitals and schools into military installations...WITH THE STUDENTS AND THE PATEINTS STILL THERE...
Your man changed the topic, and he got outed. Go talk to Publius, not those who corrected him.
No, Publius, go studying logic before making such sill comparisons. Good lord, son, how much education have you had in your life? Being a leader in a war does not make one automatically a war criminal, thus your comparison is suspect from the get go.
No, all of us who served in the military in that era were not war criminals, nor were those who served in Iraq in this decade. And, Publius? You don't speak for all of us who served in our military, those alive yet from WWII to those serving today. Remember that.
You were drawing comparisons to leaders from when to leaders of Iraq. Your fallacy about "the left" is that FDR, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, etc, were liberals to conservatives, yet Rumsfeld was guilty of aggressive war unlike the above.
I have no idea who is liberal and who is not in our combat units, and neither do you. I do know many vets who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq stating that in their opinions the wars were absolute mistakes. I served many years in the armed forces on active duty, most of the guys were conservatives, but many were not. And that is an anecdotal fact for me.
You make the same mistake about Americans' right to dissent during times of non-declared war. They have that right, it is not disgraceful, and in fact it is unpatriotic to suggest that such dissent is wrong. Johnson, Nixon, and Bush could all have asked for Declarations of War that would have given Congress the right to limit dissent. They failed to do that, so the administrations had to live with it.
WE have had morons on the board state that soldiers were not harassed and spit on coming back from Vietnam. Truly, we have had morons write that here even though they have been told so by ones who went through it.
Truly you have no idea about what you are discussing. None.
You were drawing comparisons to leaders from when to leaders of Iraq. Your fallacy about "the left" is that FDR, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, etc, were liberals to conservatives, yet Rumsfeld was guilty of aggressive war unlike the above.
I have no idea who is liberal and who is not in our combat units, and neither do you. I do know many vets who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq stating that in their opinions the wars were absolute mistakes. I served many years in the armed forces on active duty, most of the guys were conservatives, but many were not. And that is an anecdotal fact for me.
You make the same mistake about Americans' right to dissent during times of non-declared war. They have that right, it is not disgraceful, and in fact it is unpatriotic to suggest that such dissent is wrong. Johnson, Nixon, and Bush could all have asked for Declarations of War that would have given Congress the right to limit dissent. They failed to do that, so the administrations had to live with it.
WE have had morons on the board state that soldiers were not harassed and spit on coming back from Vietnam. Truly, we have had morons write that here even though they have been told so by ones who went through it.
Truly you have no idea about what you are discussing. None.
Dissent is great. Until its my ass getting shot at by the very guys who think they can gain momentum off of your dissent! In that case the people whos sheer existance protects your freedom of speech gets to die from your dissent as the left gives legitamacy to the enemies cause, and steps up their attacks every time there is a war funding measure on the floor that the left swears they will not support. The current hatred for the left by our military is probaly the highest its been toward U.S. elected officials in our history. Thank god they are mostly calm cool conservativs and not violent leftist thugs.
Not saying its right, but, liberal heros FDR and Wilson both smashed dissent!
You were drawing comparisons to leaders from when to leaders of Iraq. Your fallacy about "the left" is that FDR, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, etc, were liberals to conservatives, yet Rumsfeld was guilty of aggressive war unlike the above.
I have no idea who is liberal and who is not in our combat units, and neither do you. I do know many vets who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq stating that in their opinions the wars were absolute mistakes. I served many years in the armed forces on active duty, most of the guys were conservatives, but many were not. And that is an anecdotal fact for me.
You make the same mistake about Americans' right to dissent during times of non-declared war. They have that right, it is not disgraceful, and in fact it is unpatriotic to suggest that such dissent is wrong. Johnson, Nixon, and Bush could all have asked for Declarations of War that would have given Congress the right to limit dissent. They failed to do that, so the administrations had to live with it.
WE have had morons on the board state that soldiers were not harassed and spit on coming back from Vietnam. Truly, we have had morons write that here even though they have been told so by ones who went through it.
Truly you have no idea about what you are discussing. None.
Dissent is great. Until its my ass getting shot at by the very guys who think they can gain momentum off of your dissent! In that case the people whos sheer existance protects your freedom of speech gets to die from your dissent as the left gives legitamacy to the enemies cause, and steps up their attacks every time there is a war funding measure on the floor that the left swears they will not support. The current hatred for the left by our military is probaly the highest its been toward U.S. elected officials in our history. Thank god they are mostly calm cool conservativs and not violent leftist thugs.
Not saying its right, but, liberal heros FDR and Wilson both smashed dissent!
and why praytell, are we always at war? Seems something is askew with this picture. This question is coming from a vet who has more often than not voted conservative. My life experience is saying " What the F...?" I am not going to support kids dying to back up Wall Street interests. If they haven't F...ed with us then leave them the hell alone.
Other than being a personal friend of Dick Cheney from the Ford Administration, I could never understand why Donald Rumsfeld was appointed Secretary of Defence in the first place.
Colin Powell had more military "smarts" in his little finger than the whole Bush Administration combined.
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve
Who served?
Your man changed the topic, and he got outed. Go talk to Publius, not those who corrected him.
I just put it in to perspective. And if Rumsfield is a constitutional destroying war criminal then Truman, LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson are as well. The troops, my self included with two deployments in the the 5th Marines/ 1st Marine Division (infantry), are sick and tired of the left politisizing this shit!