Rumsfeld Hammers The UN and NATO

[Jedi Knight]

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the UN and NATO (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030208/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_germany_security_conference_7) to quit being cowards and disarm Iraq or the US is going in with both barrels blazing.

The sooner the bombs start dropping on Iraq, the safer the United States will be. When our AirForce takes them sorry fascists out, it will be another 20 years before any other country messes with us again.

Peace through superior firepower, not leftist appeasement.

JK

[Goshawk]

Har. The week's best Unintentional Humor.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/08/sprj.irq.rumsfeld.europe/index.html
"Let me be clear, no one wants war..."No one except for Donald Rumsfeld, apparently.

:D

[crackmonkey]

I have to say Rumsfeld made me proud. His line about 'old Europe and new Europe' was right on, and his berating the French and Germans for balking at NATO support for Turkey in the event of war was perfect.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Har. The week's best Unintentional Humor.

"Let me be clear, no one wants war..."--Rumsfeld

No one except for Donald Rumsfeld, apparently. To be funny there must be an element of truth. It could be argued that Rumsfeld is commited to war. But how could it be argued that he "wants" war? I'm not sure why this is funny even out of context?

In context there is simply no way that it could possibly construed as funny.

"War is never a first or an easy choice, but the risks of war have to be balanced against the risks of doing nothing, while Iraq pursues the tools of mass destruction."

Could you explain why his remarks are funny, in or out of context?

Edited to add, I do think taken out of context it could be funny. I can see an element of truth if taken out of context. Not all that funny though.

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the UN and NATO (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030208/ap_wo_en_po/eu_gen_germany_security_conference_7) to quit being cowards and disarm Iraq or the US is going in with both barrels blazing.

The sooner the bombs start dropping on Iraq, the safer the United States will be. When our AirForce takes them sorry fascists out, it will be another 20 years before any other country messes with us again.

Peace through superior firepower, not leftist appeasement.

JK

Maybe it's time you gave this (http://www.penisimprovement.com/) place a visit. If nothing else, it will give the rest of us a break from the hot air for a bit.

[RandFan]

I think Rumsfeld has done a great job. His points are dead on.

"The resolution which passed unanimously did not say the next-to-final opportunity, it said the final opportunity. Those who voted for it knew what it said."

Powell is right, the UN is in danger of being relevant if it is not already. It reminds me of the parent unable to control his or her own child.

Don't do that!

I said don't do that!

Look you do that again and something bad will happen!

Look this is the last time, stop it!

I'm not going to tell you again mister!

Ok, ok, I'm warning you!

Stop it!

I said stop it!

Ok NEXT time something really bad will happen! I don't know what it is but it will be really, really bad.

Oh please, shut the hell up and spank the kid.

[Aardvark_DK]

November 13, 2002:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
This is my final thread topic. It didn't dawn on me that I was debating in the midst of a hate group until recently when sovietesque "mental illness" labels were used against people who did not adhere to the atheist extremism point of view on numerous subjects.

[Reginald]

Just how Sadam's plan has worked out.

German Foreign minister raising his voice to a US Def Sec.

Half of Europe against the other half.

The UN exposed for what it really is, impotent.

NATO obligations (Re Turkey) being procrastinated over.

People now want the weapons found, not proof they were destroyed (As laid out in 1441).

The US gradually being made to seem more and more the bad guy in this (Even if you thought they already were, you can't doubt that its getting stronger).

He just does his thing and sits and watches while the rest of the world beat each other up verbally about if its right to beat him up.


I bet that guy is laughing his Bl@@dy head off.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by RandFan
Powell is right, the UN is in danger of being relevant if it is not already. It reminds me of the parent unable to control his or her own child. You know I meant to say irrelevant but if the UN actually followed through it would be in danger of being relevant. :D

[Attrayant]

The sooner the bombs start dropping on Iraq, the safer the United States will be. When our AirForce takes them sorry fascists out, it will be another 20 years before any other country messes with us again.

Oh yeah. (http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml)

[Goshawk]

RandFan: I submit to you that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't reeeeeally want to have a war the way Martha Stewart doesn't reeeeeally want to have a Luau Party. All that organizing, all that work, all that mess...Nobody in their right mind would want to have a Luau Party. But there she is, snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog, ordering hula skirts...

Please don't try to tell me that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't really want a war. Somebody who really doesn't want to have a war says so, at every opportunity. "I don't really want to have a war." This is not the message Donald Rumsfeld has been giving the world. He's been beating the drums for a pre-emptive strike for months now ("We have to get Saddam before he gets us!"), setting unrealistic terms for Iraq ("They can depose him, or he can voluntarily go into exile", and, "The fact that the inspectors haven't found anything means he's hiding something", and, "He hasn't been cooperative enough anyway, so we have the right to attack him...").

Actions speak louder than words, too.

He really, really wants to have that Luau Party. He's got all kinds of really, really good reasons why we ought to have a Luau Party. He's been saying so, out loud, in public, for months now, and lately he's been snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog and the telephone, ordering troops and making arrangements...

April 27, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/27/us.iraq/index.html
Report: U.S. eyes Iraq invasion in 2003
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration is plotting a potential major air campaign and ground invasion early next year to topple the Iraqi government of President Saddam Hussein, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

The use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops is being considered, the Times said.

< snip >

For years, official U.S. policy has been to work for a "regime change" in Iraq. Since the September 11 strikes, which exposed America's vulnerability to attack, the Bush administration has repeatedly said it has to act to prevent the possibility of Baghdad using weapons of mass destruction. The statements have caused unease among many European and Arab nations.

< snip >

According to the Times, there are conflicting views of the diplomatic impact, with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their senior aides feeling that "Arab leaders would publicly protest but secretly celebrate Mr. Hussein's downfall." May 6, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/time.out/index.html
Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack--a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic--was discredited last week. August 13, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/13/iraq.pentagon/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that even if U.N. weapons inspectors were allowed to return to Iraq, it would be highly improbable that they would be able to conduct a thorough examination to determine the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

< snip >

"It is a big country. They've had years to do what they want to do. They have done a great deal of underground tunneling. They have things that are mobile. It makes it very difficult for inspectors under the best of circumstances to find things," said Rumsfeld, who, along with others in the Bush administration, is looking into the feasibility of an attack on Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from power. August 22, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq/index.html
One of the top military personnel not present was Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command who would lead any military action against Iraq.

Franks was in Kazakhstan, where he told reporters he was drawing up contingency plans for Iraq to give Bush "credible options."

< snip >

Rumsfeld said that within the last 30 days, he has asked at least three U.S. combat commanders, including Franks, to come up with "various types of contingency plans in totally different parts of the world." August 27, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/27/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
CAMP PENDLETON, California (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday the decision on whether to attack Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will be based on leadership, not consensus, despite growing public anxiety about the prospect of war.

"It's less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome," Rumsfeld told Marines here.
The defense secretary said U.S. leaders and those in other countries are engaged in an important and serious discussion on Iraq, weighing the advantages of acting against Saddam versus the "advantages of not acting."

He said Bush has yet to reach a decision on the matter, but he is confident the president "will find his way to the right decision."

When that decision is made, the defense secretary said, "We'll find that in a relatively short period of time, there will be support across broad areas for doing the right thing."

The comments came a day after the White House said it doesn't need congressional approval to launch an attack and Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States cannot wait until Iraq obtains nuclear weapons before taking action. September 8, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/index.html
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the United States can't underestimate Iraq's weapons activities.

"After the Iraq war, Desert Storm, after they invaded Kuwait ... we went in and were able to find out that they were within six months to a year away from developing a nuclear weapon," Rumsfeld told CBS' "Face the Nation."

He said intelligence estimates at the time indicated Iraq was at least two, and as many as six, years away from possessing nuclear capabilities.

"Until you're down on the ground, you can't know precisely," Rumsfeld said. "The intelligence we have is clearly sufficient for the president to say that he believes the world has to recognize the Iraqis have repeatedly violated these U.N. resolutions."September 18, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a House committee Wednesday that President Bush has made no decision on military action against Iraq and said the goal of U.S. policy is not weapons inspections, but the disarmament of Iraq.

Rumsfeld also raised the specter of a September 11-style attack involving nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and told the House Armed Services committee that Iraq under leader Saddam Hussein is a global threat.

Rumsfeld listed reasons why military action would be pre-emptive, including the possibility that Baghdad either possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical or biological devices.

"No other living dictator matches Saddam Hussein's record of waging aggressive war against his neighbors," Rumsfeld said. "pursuing weapons of mass destruction, using them against his own people, launching missiles against his neighbors, brutalizing and torturing his own citizens, harboring terrorist networks, engaging in terrorist acts including the attempted assassination of foreign officials, violating international commitments, lying and hiding his W.M.D. [weapons of mass destruction] programs from inspectors, deceiving and defying the expressed will of the United Nations over and over again."

< snip >

Rumsfeld said victory would best come as part of a military coalition led by the United States.November 15, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/14/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that," [Rumsfeld] said in an hour-long radio interview for Infinity Broadcasting.

"It won't be a World War III," he added, citing the "vastly more powerful" U.S. forces, compared to 10 years ago during the first Persian Gulf War.

The defense secretary also said that a "decision has not been made that war is necessary" in getting Iraq to comply with the latest U.N. resolution calling on Baghdad to disclose its weapons of mass destruction program and disarm.

"The president has not suggested that that is going to be needed," Rumsfeld said, although President Bush has said many times that military force will be used to make Iraq comply.

"Was the attack then an imminent threat two, three, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat, when was it sufficiently dangerous? Now transport yourself forward ... if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, or use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and some of the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States or on U.S. forces overseas with weapons of mass destruction, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" Rumsfeld asked.

"Our task, your task ... is to try to connect the dots before something happens. People say, 'Well, where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction"...November 18, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/11/17/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
SANTIAGO, Chile (CNN) -- Complaining about Iraq firing once again at U.S. and British planes patrolling the "no-fly" zones, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Sunday warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that he must help U.N. weapons inspectors if he expects to avoid war.

< snip >

The defense secretary told reporters en route to Chile that it will not be good enough for Iraq simply not to thwart U.N. inspectors when they arrive. Iraq needs to help them so it can be seen as fully complying with the U.N. disarmament resolution, he said.December 12, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/wbr.rumsfeld.qatar/index.html
DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- The first stop for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Qatar is signing an agreement that will formally expand U.S. access to the huge Al Udeid air base in this small but strategically important Persian Gulf state. "There is no doubt the agreement will allow us to strengthen our long-term strategic cooperation," Rumsfeld said.

At issue is an air base with a 15,000-foot runway -- the longest in the region. That base will be critical if the United States goes to war against Iraq. On Thursday, the defense secretary made a quick visit to the U.S. military's temporary headquarters at the As Saliyah military base -- also in Qatar. December 19, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/19/sproject.irq.us.military/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon may begin an aggressive buildup of U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf region in January, depending on decisions made in the next few days, Pentagon officials said.

< snip >

The deployments would roughly double the number of U.S. troops in the region, from 60,000 to more than 100,000, officials said.December 29, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/28/sproject.irq.troops/index.html
FORT BENNING, Georgia (CNN) -- U.S. Army tank and mechanized infantry units have been told they are going to the Persian Gulf, officials said Saturday.

< snip >

The Navy has ordered two aircraft carriers -- the USS George Washington, which returned home to Norfolk, Virginia, on December 20, and a second carrier to be determined later -- to prepare to sail to the Persian Gulf after the first of the year.

< snip >

Several Marine Corps amphibious ships have received similar prepare-to-deploy orders, and the hospital ship USNS Comfort has received an activation order at its port in Baltimore.

< snip >

And the Air Force has issued tasking orders to elements of several wings, including F-15 fighters and fighter-bombers based in Virginia and North Carolina, B-1 bombers from South Dakota and a Georgia-based search-and-rescue unit. January 3, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/02/sproject.irq.uss.lincoln/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Navy has extended the tour of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in case it is needed for action against Iraq, Pentagon sources told CNN Thursday.

< snip >

The decision to continue the deployment of the USS Lincoln, along with its battle group of ships, means that as many as four U.S. carriers could be available in case hostilities occur.

Three other carriers are being readied for deployment ahead of schedule -- the USS Theodore Roosevelt on the East Coast and the USS Carl Vinson and USS Nimitz on the West Coast. January 8, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/07/sproject.irq.us.planners/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior U.S. military planners will move to Qatar as early as this week to prepare for a possible conflict with Iraq, military officials told CNN Tuesday.

The contingent from the U.S. Central Command will go to Camp As Sayliyah in the Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar to staff the headquarters for a possible conflict. Eventually, about 1,000 U.S. troops will be stationed at that base.

A recent exercise by U.S. troops in Qatar tested their ability to run a simulated war from the command center there.

< snip >

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated suggestions that Saddam go into exile to avoid a war.

"I still hope that he'll leave. And I hope that the country will be disarmed, and I hope that force will not have to be used. But in the meantime, we'll keep flowing forces," he said. January 15, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/15/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html
Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."

< snip >

At NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Wednesday, the United States formally asked the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for support in the event of military action against Iraq. January 19, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sprj.irq.us.iraq/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday that exile for Saddam Hussein and other members of the Iraqi leadership would be a "fair trade" to avoid a military conflict.

"I ... would recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country and their families could be provided haven in some other country," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." "I think that that would be a fair trade to avoid a war."

"I think that the people in his country know what a vicious regime [Saddam] runs. And they may decide to throw him out," he said.

< snip >

Rumsfeld said the question wasn't what the inspectors find in Iraq but rather how well the Iraqi government cooperates.

"The only way the inspectors can find anything is if the Iraqi government cooperates and shows it to them," Rumsfeld told reporters. "Inspectors can't find things. They can only inspect what they've been shown."

And, Rumsfeld said, Iraq has shown little cooperation.

"Thus far, they have filed a false declaration of what they have," he said. "They have refused to file the list of the scientists that they are required to provide so that they can be taken out of the country and talked to in safety with their families and won't be killed by Saddam Hussein, as he did kill his sons-in-law after they came back into the country." January 23, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/22/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday dismissed French and German insistence that "everything must be done to avoid war" with Iraq, saying most European countries stand with the United States in its campaign to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," said Rumsfeld, a former NATO ambassador. "But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

Germany and France represent "old Europe," and NATO's expansion in recent years means "the center of gravity is shifting to the east," Rumsfeld said. January 30, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/sprj.irq.jordan/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is confident that it will be able to fly combat missions over Jordan and base some U.S. troops there in a possible war with Iraq, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The United States would like to base a limited number of Special Operations forces in Jordan that would be able to move quickly into western Iraq to neutralize suspected Scud missile sites and secure airfields and other facilities, sources said.

These officials also said the United States would like to place Patriot missile batteries in eastern Jordan to protect against possible Iraqi Scud missile attacks. January 31, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/31/sproject.irq.turkey.ap/index.html
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Turkey's top military and civilian leaders have endorsed basing foreign troops in the country, a move that could open the way for American soldiers to use Turkey as a base for military action against Iraq.

< snip >

The decision by the council comes after intense American pressure for basing rights in the NATO-ally Turkey. February 6, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/05/iraq.tracker.update/index.html
MORE TROOPS CALLED: The total number of U.S. National Guard and Reserve troops on active duty in preparation for a possible war with Iraq has surpassed 100,000, the Pentagon said Wednesday. The call-up is the largest since the troop buildup that preceded the 1991 Persian Gulf War. February 6, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/06/iraq.tracker.update/index.html
NEW U.S. DEPLOYMENTS: One of the U.S. Army's key fighting forces, the 101st Airborne Division, received deployment orders Thursday, a spokesman at Fort Campbell, Kentucky said. The spokesman said the troops' destination wasn't immediately clear, but the assumption was they will be sent to the Central Command Region, which includes the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was expected Thursday to sign deployment orders to the Persian Gulf for the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier battle group. Four carriers already are in the region. February 7, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.rumsfeld.europe/index.html
Asked at the Italian news conference what sense of urgency he carried about the crisis with Iraq, [Rumsfeld] said, "the world feels a sense of momentum" and the "long road" to disarm Iraq over the last 12 years has been a stark failure.

"We've seen enormous efforts by the international community of a diplomatic nature, and they have failed," he said, mentioning economic sanctions, the oil-for-food programme and the no-fly zone patrols.

He said there is great "urgency" in the standoff because Saddam's weaponry becomes "more mature" as time goes on.

"And the risk of their use becomes greater," he said, "whether by that country or to a terrorist network."

"The world faces a serious situation," Rumsfeld said, observing the danger of the "nexus" between Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, terrorist states and terrorist networks. He reminded reporters that Iraq has used chemical weapons on Kurds in Iraq.

< snip >

Rumsfeld argued for the U.S. effort to use force as an option to disarm by saying that if the United States had information that the September 11, 2001, attack would take place, wouldn't the country have had an "obligation to stop it?"

"Instead of an attack with 3,000 people killed, imagine an attack with a biological weapon that kills 30,000 or 300,000 innocent people." February 8, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/02/08/btsc.gupta/index.html
KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait (CNN) -- Fifteen to 20 kilometers from the Iraq-Kuwaiti border, a large U.S. military buildup has begun. Thousands of young men and women, U.S. Army soldiers, are putting up barracks and hunkering down. February 9, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/09/sprj.irq.civil.fleet.action/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Responding to the build-up of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, the Department of Defense has activated the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which allows the U.S. military to transport troops and equipment by commercial aircraft, a spokesman for the U.S. Transportation Command said Saturday.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized the Stage One activation Saturday, according to a news release from the Defense Department. Stage One authorization is the lowest activation level, and occurs with "minor regional crises."

Though the activation means 22 U.S. airline companies and their 78 commercial aircraft may now be called upon to move large numbers of troops and cargo for the U.S. military, Navy Capt. Steve Honda said the commander of the Transportation Command, Air Force Gen. John Handy, is only activating 47 passenger aircraft. So now you see why it's funny to hear Rumsfeld say, "No one wants war"?

It's like when you're at Martha's house, and the Luau Party that she's been planning for weeks is just about to begin, the first cars are pulling into the driveway--and she claps her hand to her forehead and moans, "Oh. My. God. How did I ever get into this? I don't want to have a Luau Party!"

What, is she kidding? She's been planning it for weeks! It's hilarious.

Rummy's hilarious, too. "No one wants war..."

* snicker *

[Russ]

I'm not reading all of that.

But come on. Nobody knows how this will all play out. I understand there are risks, but I prefer action to inaction. This problem will not go away by ignoring it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Russ
I'm not reading all of that.

But come on. Nobody knows how this will all play out. I understand there are risks, but I prefer action to inaction. This problem will not go away by ignoring it.

action like WWI action?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Starshark


Maybe it's time you gave this (http://www.penisimprovement.com/) place a visit. If nothing else, it will give the rest of us a break from the hot air for a bit.

He probably drives a giant SUV or pickup truck too!!!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Goshawk
I submit to you that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't reeeeeally want to have a war the way Martha Stewart doesn't reeeeeally want to have a Luau Party. All that organizing, all that work, all that mess...Nobody in their right mind would want to have a Luau Party. But there she is, snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog, ordering hula skirts... I don't have any idea what it is you are trying to say. Does he want to have a war or not.

Please don't try to tell me that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't really want a war. Donald Rumsfeld doesn't Really want a war.

Somebody who really doesn't want to have a war says so, at every opportunity. Specious argument.

This is not the message Donald Rumsfeld has been giving the world. He's been beating the drums for a pre-emptive strike for months now This does not prove that Rumsfeld wants to go to war. This proves that Rumsfeld is giving the presidents message to the nation and is preparing the nation to go to war.

("We have to get Saddam before he gets us!"), setting unrealistic terms for Iraq ("They can depose him, or he can voluntarily go into exile", and, "The fact that the inspectors haven't found anything means he's hiding something", and, "He hasn't been cooperative enough anyway, so we have the right to attack him..."). If Saddam had cooperated then Blix would have said so. If the UN had said that Saddam was fully cooperating then war plans would have been put on hold. The UN would have jumped at the chance to say that Saddam was cooperating.

Actions speak louder than words, too. They prove intent not desire.

I have been busting my ass working weekends and nights so I can pay my taxes (I'm on contract and don't have any taxes taken out of my check). What do my actions speak of? They speak that I am motivated to pay my taxes. They don't prove my desire to pay my taxes. Trust me I DON'T WANT TO PAY MY TAXES.

My Brother in law just sold his home. He worked really hard painting it and fixing it up so that he would be able to sell it. What do his actions speak of?

Well he lost his job and didn't want to lose his equity. He loved his home, his friends, his children are sad that they are loosing their friends, his children were born there and he loved his back yard and garage. He now has to move into an apartment and he is really pissed. Trust me he DIDN'T WANT TO SELL IT! And you know what, he didn't say he didn't want to sell it at every opportunity. He said something once at a family gathering and then bucked it up and moved on. So yes, I do very much think your argument is specious.

He really, really wants to have that Luau Party. He's got all kinds of really, really good reasons why we ought to have a Luau Party. He's been saying so, out loud, in public, for months now, and lately he's been snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog and the telephone, ordering troops and making arrangements... Donald Rumsfeld is a decent man. He knows that people will die if there is a war. He understands the ramifications of this war and it bothers him. He wishes that there were another way. However...

And this might come as a shock to you but the decision is not his to make. The president has made the decision and now it is up to Donald Rumsfeld to get the nation ready for a war. And that is what he has been doing.

Thank you for the links, they illustrate my point so very well.

So now you see why it's funny to hear Rumsfeld say, "No one wants war"? No more funny than when I say that I don't want to pay my taxes. No more funny than when my Brother-in-law says he didn't want to sell his house.

It's like when you're at Martha's house, and the Luau Party that she's been planning for weeks is just about to begin, the first cars are pulling into the driveway--and she claps her hand to her forehead and moans, "Oh. My. God. How did I ever get into this? I don't want to have a Luau Party!" The decisions that the president is planning have very serious consequences. I don't think he or Rumsfeld are laughing at the prospect of young men dying, of mother losing sons, of children dying from wayward bombs or all of the horrors of war. It may be funny to you but the administration including Rumsfeld take it very seriously.

Rummy's hilarious, too. "No one wants war..." When Johnson bombed Hiroshima he had planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he didn't want to drop the bomb.

Before the Allies invaded Normandy Eisenhower planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he did not want to send those boys do their death.

You know, actions speak louder than words.

* snicker *

Your sense of humor is odd.

I don't find war or death funny. I don't find the plans funny. I don't find Rumsfelds remarks Ironic. He said himself that it is a difficult decision. It is a loose-loose decision.

But keep laughing.

Goshawk,

One last piece of advice, humor is subjective. Never try to explain it. It's best to just say "lighten up, if you don't get it then fine".

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't have any idea what it is you are trying to say. Does he want to have a war or not.

Donald Rumsfeld doesn't Really want a war.

Specious argument.

This does not prove that Rumsfeld wants to go to war. This proves that Rumsfeld is giving the presidents message to the nation and is preparing the nation to go to war.

If Saddam had cooperated then Blix would have said so. If the UN had said that Saddam was fully cooperating then war plans would have been put on hold. The UN would have jumped at the chance to say that Saddam was cooperating.

They prove intent not desire.

I have been busting my ass working weekends and nights so I can pay my taxes (I'm on contract and don't have any taxes taken out of my check). What do my actions speak of? They speak that I am motivated to pay my taxes. They don't prove my desire to pay my taxes. Trust me I DON'T WANT TO PAY MY TAXES.

My Brother in law just sold his home. He worked really hard painting it and fixing it up so that he would be able to sell it. What do his actions speak of?

Well he lost his job and didn't want to lose his equity. He loved his home, his friends, his children are sad that they are loosing their friends, his children were born there and he loved his back yard and garage. He now has to move into an apartment and he is really pissed. Trust me he DIDN'T WANT TO SELL IT! And you know what, he didn't say he didn't want to sell it at every opportunity. He said something once at a family gathering and then bucked it up and moved on. So yes, I do very much think your argument is specious.

Donald Rumsfeld is a decent man. He knows that people will die if there is a war. He understands the ramifications of this war and it bothers him. He wishes that there were another way. However...

And this might come as a shock to you but the decision is not his to make. The president has made the decision and now it is up to Donald Rumsfeld to get the nation ready for a war. And that is what he has been doing.

Thank you for the links, they illustrate my point so very well.

No more funny than when I say that I don't want to pay my taxes. No more funny than when my Brother-in-law says he didn't want to sell his house.

The decisions that the president is planning have very serious consequences. I don't think he or Rumsfeld are laughing at the prospect of young men dying, of mother losing sons, of children dying from wayward bombs or all of the horrors of war. It may be funny to you but the administration including Rumsfeld take it very seriously.

When Johnson bombed Hiroshima he had planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he didn't want to drop the bomb.

Before the Allies invaded Normandy Eisenhower planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he did not want to send those boys do their death.

You know, actions speak louder than words.



Your sense of humor is odd.

I don't find war or death funny. I don't find the plans funny. I don't find Rumsfelds remarks Ironic. He said himself that it is a difficult decision. It is a loose-loose decision.

But keep laughing.

Humor is subjective, if you find it funny then by all means, laugh.



Hey Randfan, you work for Rand Corp?

JK

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Randfan, you work for Rand Corp?

JK No, but I like Ayn Rand, the Rand Corp's name sake.

[Russ]

action like WWI action?
No

[Smalso]

When Johnson bombed Hiroshima he had planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he didn't want to drop the bomb.

Johnson?:confused:

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the UN and NATO to quit being cowards and disarm Iraq or the US is going in with both barrels blazing.


So? Since when is someone who gives away biological weapons to a dictator like Saddam a moral authority?

[Goshawk]

RandFan: I'm not saying that Rumsfeld is an Evil World-Dominating Genius slavering to see American soldiers die. I'm not saying that he's probably not fundamentally a kind and decent man.

And I don't mean "funny" as in "joke funny", I mean "funny' as in "ironically", "sardonically" funny.

I'm saying that he's been publicly saying for a long time now that he is personally committed to having a war. He thinks a war with Iraq would be a Good Thing. He doesn't even care whether the American people approve or not, which is a strange attitude for a public official in a democracy.

And so I'm saying that it's deeply, extremely, ironically "funny" to hear someone who has been beating the Big War Drum for months now say something like, "No one wants war."

Sorry if you don't get it. ;)

Your "I don't really want to pay my taxes" metaphor does not hold up. You don't have a choice whether or not to pay your taxes. Donald Rumsfeld does have a choice whether or not to make statements in public like, "We will declare war on Iraq whether the American people approve or not." Donald Rumsfeld does have a choice whether or not to send troops to the Persian Gulf, and if so, how many.

It is not correct or accurate to say that he's "just following his President's orders" by setting up the situation for war, sending troops to the Gulf, putting aircraft carriers on High Alert, getting all his ducks in a row base-wise, etc. If there's one message that's been coming out of the Bush Administration vis-a-vis World Policy, it's that they're all a "team", Rice and Powell and Rumsfeld and Bush. They work together. Dubya doesn't sit up in front and give orders--they all sit down and discuss it together.

Dubya doesn't give Donald orders to start sending troops to the Persian Gulf, and Donald--that "good, kind, decent man who doesn't really want a war"--complies. Rumsfeld has been a Hawk *ever since*, and he joined the Bush team on the understanding of all parties concerned that that's what he was. He's sending troops to the Gulf and getting all his ducks in a row, base-wise, because he and Dubya agree that that a war in Iraq would be a Good Thing, not because his Commander-in-Chief told him to.

I'm talking about "actions", not " thoughts" or "motivations" or "emotions". Since I can't get inside Rumsfeld's head to find out how he really feels about sending American soldiers to die in Iraq, I have to go by his "actions", which means his public statements as well as his actual sending of troops.

Rumsfeld hasn't frequently mentioned that he didn't want to have a war. But he has frequently mentioned, one way or another, what a Good Thing he personally thinks a war with Iraq would be.

He has mentioned, once, that he doesn't want to have a war ("No one wants war...") Now, you are choosing to interpret this as "regret expressed by a kind and decent man", but what I hear is a sop issued by a politician with less-than-optimal support by the public, to all those Americans who are from his POV so inconveniently and inexplicably protesting a war with Iraq (strange how the American public hasn't begun to demonstrate "broad support" for a war as he predicted they would in his speech to the Marines back on August 27).

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Goshawk
[B]It is not correct or accurate to say that he's "just following his President's orders" by setting up the situation for war, sending troops to the Gulf, putting aircraft carriers on High Alert, getting all his ducks in a row base-wise, etc. If there's one message that's been coming out of the Bush Administration vis-a-vis World Policy, it's that they're all a "team", Rice and Powell and Rumsfeld and Bush. They work together. Dubya doesn't sit up in front and give orders--they all sit down and discuss it together.

Dubya doesn't give Donald orders to start sending troops to the Persian Gulf, and Donald--that "good, kind, decent man who doesn't really want a war"--complies. Rumsfeld has been a Hawk *ever since*, and he joined the Bush team on the understanding of all parties concerned that that's what he was. He's sending troops to the Gulf and getting all his ducks in a row, base-wise, because he and Dubya agree that that a war in Iraq would be a Good Thing, not because his Commander-in-Chief told him to.

Hi Goshawk,

I appreciate the tone of your post. I usually come of as patronizing and that starts a long debate.

Kudos to you for not responding in kind.

There are somethings that reasonable people just have to disagree with. I disagree with you on this one. I think that you are selctively taking statements by Rumsfeld out of context to portray him as something that he is not.

One last thing, could you provide some evidence to show that it is Rumsfeld's decision to send troops to war? You are the first person I have ever heard that suggested that Rumsfeld had the authority to wage war.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Goshawk
RandFan: I submit to you that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't reeeeeally want to have a war the way Martha Stewart doesn't reeeeeally want to have a Luau Party. All that organizing, all that work, all that mess...Nobody in their right mind would want to have a Luau Party. But there she is, snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog, ordering hula skirts...

Please don't try to tell me that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't really want a war. Somebody who really doesn't want to have a war says so, at every opportunity. "I don't really want to have a war." This is not the message Donald Rumsfeld has been giving the world. He's been beating the drums for a pre-emptive strike for months now ("We have to get Saddam before he gets us!"), setting unrealistic terms for Iraq ("They can depose him, or he can voluntarily go into exile", and, "The fact that the inspectors haven't found anything means he's hiding something", and, "He hasn't been cooperative enough anyway, so we have the right to attack him...").

Actions speak louder than words, too.

He really, really wants to have that Luau Party. He's got all kinds of really, really good reasons why we ought to have a Luau Party. He's been saying so, out loud, in public, for months now, and lately he's been snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog and the telephone, ordering troops and making arrangements...

SNIP SNIP SNIP...

So now you see why it's funny to hear Rumsfeld say, "No one wants war"?

It's like when you're at Martha's house, and the Luau Party that she's been planning for weeks is just about to begin, the first cars are pulling into the driveway--and she claps her hand to her forehead and moans, "Oh. My. God. How did I ever get into this? I don't want to have a Luau Party!"

What, is she kidding? She's been planning it for weeks! It's hilarious.

Rummy's hilarious, too. "No one wants war..."

* snicker *

All your copious examples have proven is that the United States has consistently guessed correctly that 1441 would fail and the Iraqi deceptions would continue.

All this has come to pass, even by the UN's own limp-wristed measurement. THE US GAMBLED THAT IT WOULD WORK OUT THIS WAY, AND WON.

How does that prove that anyone WANTS a war? All it proves to me is that Rumsfeld isn't as naiive as the dipsh!ts in France and Germany.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Jocko


All your copious examples have proven is that the United States has consistently guessed correctly that 1441 would fail and the Iraqi deceptions would continue.

All this has come to pass, even by the UN's own limp-wristed measurement. THE US GAMBLED THAT IT WOULD WORK OUT THIS WAY, AND WON.

How does that prove that anyone WANTS a war? All it proves to me is that Rumsfeld isn't as naiive as the dipsh!ts in France and Germany.

This also proves the communist, anti-freedom intentions of the UN. The UN says: "Oh US, oh please, please, I beg of you not to invade the despotic terror state of Iraq."

And France, what a bunch of cowards! There are cemetaries in France filled with tens of thousands of US bodies--men that died freeing them from the Nazis. France is filled with cowards, not men. We should sever all ties with France and find a way to go to war with them.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
We should sever all ties with France and find a way to go to war with them.
...

[Goshawk]

Actually I haven't had to take any of Rumsfeld's statements out of context in order to make him come off as sounding like some kind of Uber-Hawk. This was why I included the links, so you can go read for yourself what all the contexts are. He is a Hawk on Iraq, always has been. I don't have to cut and paste any of his statements out of context to show that.

And er, no, I don't believe I'm saying that Rumsfeld, alone, makes the decision whether to send troops to the Persian Gulf. Obviously that's not a decision that he's empowered to make. But I am saying that Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is point man on the Bush Foreign Policy and National Security Team (which is comprised of Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and CIA Director Tenet) for any operation involving U.S. armed forces. For example, the Team may have made the decision to send troops, and the President may have officially authorized it, but the Washington Post headline says, "Rumsfeld increases buildup".

http://www.post-gazette.com/world/20021228usiraqworld2p2.asp
Larger force readied for Gulf as Rumsfeld increases buildup near Iraq
Saturday, December 28, 2002
By Vernon Loeb, The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has signed a deployment order to send "significant" ground forces, combat aircraft and logistics support to the Persian Gulf, a move that marks the beginning of a final buildup for a possible war against Iraq, senior defense officials said yesterday.

The classified order, a 20-plus-page document signed by Rumsfeld on Tuesday, identifies an array of forces and capabilities -- such as mechanized infantry units, mid-air refuelers and medical facilities -- that will be shipped and airlifted to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and other Gulf nations in the coming weeks.

The document leaves it up to the individual military services to decide what specific units will fulfill Rumsfeld's force requirements. The Navy, for instance, issued "prepare to deploy" orders yesterday to two aircraft carrier battle groups and activated a hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, based in Baltimore and ordered its crew to prepare a 1,000-bed trauma center.

"It's a little bit of everything, and its very comprehensive," said one official, who declined to specify how many individuals would be affected by the order. "It's heavy on the logistics side."

The U.S. has been deploying troops, aircraft, tanks, other heavy equipment and supplies to the Persian Gulf for months in anticipation of possible military action against Iraq. Currently, there are about 60,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the region and 400 aircraft at bases in Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain.So what I'm saying is that when the National Security Team sits down to talk about what to do about Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld probably provides the strongest and most determined voice advocating a strong armed response. Obviously the American Secretary of Defense cannot make a personal decision to dispatch troops wherever and whenever he feels like it, but once the decision is made by the National Security Team and the President to send troops in relation to the Iraq situation, it's up to the Secretary of Defense to decide which troops go.

However, it's worth noting that the Bush Foreign Policy and National Security Team don't always agree with each other, and so presumably Rumsfeld doesn't get his way all the time. I personally have not the slightest doubt that if it hadn't been for the moderating influence of Colin Powell, the U.S. would have gone Comanche on Saddam's butt months ago, whether or not the UN and the rest of the world approved. Rice isn't strong enough to say "no" to Rumsfeld, and Cheney probably agrees with him.

October 01, 2001.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1001/p1s3-uspo.html
As the sands shift, the advice that probably counts most is that coming from Bush's secretive, inner circle of security experts, including Mr. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Powell is widely considered the most cautious of this team. He served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the Gulf War, but he also sat in the Oval Office of George Bush Sr. and argued against using force to roll back the Iraqi army from Kuwait, according to Bob Woodward's book "The Commanders."

< snip >

That decision was no doubt cheered by Mr. Cheney, then secretary of Defense, who early on had adopted a much more aggressive stance on the Iraqi invasion than did Powell.

The current Defense secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, is also said to be considerably more comfortable with risk than is Powell. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has urged "ending states who sponsor terrorism," and, like Rumsfeld, is said to advocate a broader war that also targets Iraq.

Says a former government official of Rumsfeld: "He's just as concerned about the risks of doing nothing."August 30, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/30/powell.iraq/index.html
Powell doesn't back invasion of Iraq without support of 'key allies'
August 30, 2002

CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- The White House Friday downplayed any suggestion that there is a split in President Bush's national security team over Iraq, despite opposing views coming from top members of the Cabinet.

U.S. officials tell CNN that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other members of the team met earlier this week at the White House and discussed regional strategies, including those for Iraq.
The view of the administration is united and one in the same," Scott McClellan, White House deputy press secretary, told reporters Friday in Crawford, Texas. "We are singing from the same songbook."

However, a person close to Powell within the administration says Powell does not believe the United States should invade Iraq without the support of "key allies."

This person, who asked not to be identified but is intimately familiar with Powell's thinking, said Thursday that Powell opposes any action in which the United States would "go it alone ... as if it doesn't give a damn" what other nations think.

Vice President Dick Cheney has pressed the case for a U.S. attack on Iraq, saying the advantages of attacking far outweigh the risks of inaction. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said this week that the decision to strike Iraq will be based on leadership, not consensus.

McClellan said the administration has been consistent, advocating a policy of regime change in Iraq. The Bush spokesman stressed the president has not made any final decisions, including whether to pursue military action to try to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Let me repeat that last statement: "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said this week that the decision to strike Iraq will be based on leadership, not consensus." "Leadership, not consensus" means that he feels that the President and the National Security Team have the right to go ahead and do what they think is the right thing to do in Iraq, and that he thinks they don't have to wait for a consensus from the rest of America.

Or the world.

Now, all of this taken together is not *exactly* the same thing as Rumsfeld making a unilateral decision, his own self, to "wage war", but it's awfully, awfully close IMO.

[Goshawk]

Jocko: Er, unless I missed something, or unless your crystal ball works better than mine, 1441 hasn't "failed" yet. It's still very much in progress. Even Colin Powell hasn't given up on it. The clock hasn't run out.

February 10, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/sprj.irq.powell/index.html
Iraq is in "greater material breach" of the resolution every day, Powell told "Fox News Sunday." "I hope that the U.N. will not slip into irrelevance by failing to step up to its responsibilities at this point in history."

< snip >

If the U.N. Security Council does not support military action when it's time to take that step, Powell said, the United States and a willing coalition of other countries will.

Powell said Iraq still has the opportunity to avoid war by turning over all documents it has related to weapons, and making all of its scientists and engineers available for interviews. But time is running out before the situation requires force, he said.

< snip >

Powell said the Bush administration is waiting to hear what Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. weapons inspectors, will present in their third report to the U.N. Security Council this Friday.

Still, the United States is prepared to present a second resolution declaring Iraq in material breach of 1441, and is currently talking with allies about it.

"Those conversations have begun with respect to a second resolution, in light of continued Iraqi noncompliance," Powell told ABC. And anyway, the next step, after the U.S. officially decides 1441 has failed, won't be to send in the troops. The next step will be to get another UN resolution passed, declaring that Iraq is in "material breach". And you remember how long it took to get 1441 passed.

September 13, 2002, Bush tells the UN to get on the stick.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2254712.stm

And it wasn't adopted November 8, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/

I wouldn't look for any faster results this time around. The rest of the world isn't any crazier about the idea of a U.S.-led Iraq war now than they were last summer, and Russia, Germany, and France at the moment are quite definitely Not On The Bus.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.html

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Let me repeat that last statement: "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said this week that the decision to strike Iraq will be based on leadership, not consensus." "Leadership, not consensus" means that he feels that the President and the National Security Team have the right to go ahead and do what they think is the right thing to do in Iraq, and that he thinks they don't have to wait for a consensus from the rest of America. Better believe it. We are a representative democracy. We vote for leaders to make decisions. If we needed to wait for a consensus then we wouldn't elect leaders but just have a vote for every decision. Fortunately the US is supporting the president.

Or the world. Or the world? Well most are behind us. But as I have argued over and over, the US must not abdicate its responsibility to please a others who do not have our best interest at heart.

Now, all of this taken together is not *exactly* the same thing as Rumsfeld making a unilateral decision, his own self, to "wage war", but it's awfully, awfully close IMO. No, its not even close. After the end of the Gulf war I predicted that our inability to deal with Saddam would come back and bite us in the ass.

Over the years of obfuscation and ******** from this man who was caught lying about massive amounts of Anthrax I felt that he would have to be dealt with. But the world grew tired of the entire affair. Remove the sanctions was the call. Then came 911 and an administration with a backbone and looking allot more like a responsible Churchill than an ass kissing Chamberlain. I believed that we finally had a chance to do something about a man who is a real threat to the United States its interests and its allies. Now a man who is not some pussy whipped pacifist who understands that leaders must make difficult decisions steps in and chooses men who also understand this simple concept and I am pleased.

You call Rumsfeld a hawk. Define hawk. To me Lincoln was a hawk, FDR was a hawk, Winston Churchill was a hawk, Colin Powell is a hawk, Norman Swarchkopf is a hawk. Good company to be in.

My favorite movies are anti-war movies. Catch-22, Dr. Strangelove, All Quiet on The Western Front.
The problem with these movies is they use characatures to tell a story. Catch-22's Milo Minderbinder and Colonel Cathcart, Dr. Strangelove's Gen. Buck Turgidson paint distorted pictures for a purpose.

Wars are hell, we need to realize that before we decide to wage them. But we need leaders who can decern when there is clear and present danger.

Rumsfeld is just such a leader. Painting him as some charicature serves no real purpose. As I said before, Rumsfeld is a decent man who believes that this course of action to be the best one for our country. You do not need to agree with him but making him into a movie charicature is only self serving rhetoric.

[Buzzsaw]

Originally posted by Reginald
Just how Sadam's plan has worked out.

German Foreign minister raising his voice to a US Def Sec.

Half of Europe against the other half.

The UN exposed for what it really is, impotent.

NATO obligations (Re Turkey) being procrastinated over.

People now want the weapons found, not proof they were destroyed (As laid out in 1441).

The US gradually being made to seem more and more the bad guy in this (Even if you thought they already were, you can't doubt that its getting stronger).

He just does his thing and sits and watches while the rest of the world beat each other up verbally about if its right to beat him up.


I bet that guy is laughing his Bl@@dy head off.

Well said Reginald! He probably won't be laughing so hard in a few weeks however.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Buzzsaw
Well said Reginald! He probably won't be laughing so hard in a few weeks however.

LOL...sooner than that.

JK

[Reginald]

YES!!! U2 spy planes can fly and look for WMD!!!
(now we have had time to hide them from the air....I wasnt stalling for nothing folks)

Headlines headlines headlines.


A few hours later.....


With just these few condidtions....LOL

Keep your eye on the cup folks, thats one elusive pea!!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Reginald
YES!!! U2 spy planes can fly and look for WMD!!!
(now we have had time to hide them from the air....I wasnt stalling for nothing folks)

Headlines headlines headlines.


A few hours later.....


With just these few condidtions....LOL

Keep your eye on the cup folks, thats one elusive pea!!

The conditions are that only blind pilots may be used and all cameras in the plane must have the lenses polished with 120 grit wet-n-dry. The aircraft must also fly inverted.

[Goshawk]

RandFan: I don't see how quoting the man's own words constitutes making him into a "caricature". None of them are quoted out of context. All of them are his public statements on the subject of Iraq. The way you make a man into a caricature is by taking statements that aren't relevant and quoting them out of context. This makes him look foolish, to someone who doesn't realize where the quotes came from.

But all of the statements that I quoted were all perfectly relevant, and none of them were out of context.

When the subject of Iraq comes up, the simple truth is that Rumsfeld truly believes that the best solution is going to be an armed response. I was not able to find anywhere else where he said, "Well, maybe a war isn't such a good idea..."

And since neither of us has any way of knowing how he really feels, inside himself, about war, or Iraq, the point about whether he is in fact a "kind and decent man" who is genuinely distressed by the prospect of sending American soldiers to die in Iraq would seem to be moot, wouldn't it? I can't prove that he doesn't care; you can't prove that he does care. And as a matter of fact, I am perfectly willing to concede the point--to admit--that he probably does feel distress at the prospect of sending American soldiers to die in Iraq. Like I said, I'm not trying to portray him as some kind of Mad Warmongering Genius slavering to see American blood spilled in Baghdad. Nothing I have heard from him, or about him, would seem to indicate that he's a Saddam-style psychopath, just that he's a politican doing his job, which happens to be planning and running wars.

But the main point is, even if he does privately feel regret at the prospect of a war with Iraq, it hasn't changed his public face.. His public face still makes it perfectly clear that he's all for war with Iraq, 100%. And this should hardly be surprising, considering that "war" is, after all, his job. If he didn't "like" war, at some level, if he didn't "enjoy" it, he wouldn't have been tapped to be Secretary of Defense. All of the other people in the Cabinet have backgrounds that are relevant to their posts, and furthermore, that suggest that they enjoy what they do. He was Ford's Secretary of Defense, too.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bushcabinet.html
Donald H. Rumsfeld. The role as secretary of defense is not a new one for Rumsfeld. He held the same position under President Ford. The role of the U.S. military, however, has changed dramatically since 1975. Rumsfeld has indicated that he favors building an impenetrable national missile defense system. He and Vice President Dick Cheney have strong ties that date back to the Nixon administration, when Cheney served as Rumsfeld's assistant in the Office of Economic Opportunity. In 1974, Rumsfeld led President Ford's transition team, and he brought Cheney, his protégé, to the executive office. When Rumsfeld was named secretary of defense in 1975, Cheney was appointed Ford's chief of staff. Rumsfeld served in Congress from 1962 to 1969 as a representative from Illinois. When President Carter was elected in 1976, Rumsfeld entered the private sector. He recently headed a panel that concluded countries such as North Korea and Iran could eventually have the capacity to launch ballistic missiles at the United States. The commission's report helped to reinvigorate the debate over the need for a national missile defense.Someone who backs the NMD because he's worried that Iraq and North Korea might nuke the U.S. cannot IMO fairly be characterized as a "dove".

So, you don't think he's a Hawk, and I don't think he's a Dove. All that leaves is "Moderate", which would be somebody who really doesn't want to have a war but who sees that sometimes it's the only option.

Why don't you be the one to go find some other statements of his that would indicate that he's a Moderate, that he really doesn't want to have a war? So far all we have in the "regret" category from him is the one statement in the OP: "No one wants war..." Why don't you go look around on CNN.com and GoogleNews and see if you can find some other times when he expressed sorrow, or regret, at the prospect of a war with Iraq? Because all I found, when I was putting in search terms like "rumsfeld iraq troops" was the quotes that I gave you. If you think I was only giving you the quotes that proved he was a Hawk, then by all means, go and find some other quotes that prove that he isn't. I would welcome the information.

[Vorticity]

Ahem. Unrelated, but:

Originally posted by JK
"The House Unamerican Activities Commission (HUAC, know as the "Truth Commission")."

-completely made-up "fact" from JK, here: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13368&pagenumber=4

Just a reminder. Any reference for the above, JK?
Now back to the regularly scheduled lunacy...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Goshawk
But the main point is, even if he does privately feel regret at the prospect of a war with Iraq, it hasn't changed his public face.. His public face still makes it perfectly clear that he's all for war with Iraq, 100%. And thank god that he isn't some wimpy pacifist. Rumsfeld understands the importance of the assignment that he has. I am really glad he is there. You certainly are welcome to say he "wants" war. I disagree. I think he knows that there is a problem and this is the best way to solve the problem. Saying that it is funny because he "wants" war does not ring true to me.

So, you don't think he's a Hawk, I accept that he is a Hawk, the problem is I don't know how YOU define Hawk. To me a Hawk is not some one who "wants" war. A Hawk is someone who understands that strength is more important than weakness to avert war. A Hawk is someone who understands the lessons of pre WWII and how pacifism created a monster and that there will always be tyrants that will exploit weakness. Our mistake prior to Saddam invading Kuwait was not putting on a united front and letting Saddam know that we would act should he invade. It wasn't that we gave him our permission it was that he thought we would NOT ACT.

Rumsfeld is a man who will act. This does not make him want war. And those that use such rhetoric are self serving.

When student activists seized the embassy members in Iran it was because they truly believed that America would not act. On the contrary they believed that our people would rise up on their side. We must let the world know that we DON'T want war. However we are prepared to act if our security is threatened. Rumsfeld makes it known to the world that we are not some wimpy super power afraid of offending and unwilling to act in its own defense.

Why don't you be the one to go find some other statements of his that would indicate that he's a Moderate, that he really doesn't want to have a war? Rumsfeld message is quite clear. We are prepared to act in the face of aggression. We will uphold agreements that others make when the surrender. Saddam has failed to live up to his part of the bargain. He is in breech and he is not cooperating. We will act and not be like the parent who keeps telling the spoiled child, "stop that Johnny", over and over again.

If you think I was only giving you the quotes that proved he was a Hawk, then by all means, go and find some other quotes that prove that he isn't. I would welcome the information. No, you say he wants war. All of his quotes clearly say to me that he is prepared for war. That the 12 year history of Saddam is clear. This man is not going to change. We all know that. Let's stop kidding ourselves. He has obfuscated and lied and been caught time after time. He was caught with massive amounts of biological agents when he swore he didn't have them. Rumsfeld knows this, he knows the likely hood of Saddam changing. He is preparing the nation for the probability of war. That does not make him "want" war.

Saying Rumsfeld "wants" war is spin and propaganda. I accept that you believe it but I have not seen any evidence that he "wants' war anymore than I want to pay my taxes or my brother-in-law wanted to sell his home.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

So long Mom,
I'm off to drop the Bomb,
So don't wait up for me


Stop calling it Aggression,
We HATE that Expression,
We'd rather wipe them out by peaceful means!

Oh where is Tom Lehrer when you really need him?