Reply With Quote
Are you kidding me? Do you think his and Rummy's thoughts about the military are the same? Do you think his relationship to the generals on the ground is the same?
Do you have any particular "suckers" in mind?
Are you kidding me? Do you think his and Rummy's thoughts about the military are the same? Do you think his relationship to the generals on the ground is the same?
The question, which you completely ignored, was "what strategy would Powell implement at this time that would make a difference".
From what I know about Powell, there would likely be a change in troop strength and deployment -- most likely an increase in troops since generals would feel more free to say they need them.
Now you can tell me how keeping Rumsfeld will improve the situation.
I think he would look at this situation for what it is. If the goal is to win, more troops. not 20k or 30k, more like 250k.
I don't think Powell would accept, but if he did he wouldn't allow people that were formally on our hit list to give orders to our troops. That is a good example of disrepair.
Bush's refusal to get rid of Rumsfield is my biggest complaint with our president right now. The guy doesn't know how to fight a war, and his branches are disenchanted with his leadership (Rumsefeld's).
Rummy was more committed to proving his "modernization" of the armed forces was the way to go than actually achieving our policy goals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he can't bring himself to say he was wrong in the face of the quagmire in Iraq and the resurgence of the Taliban.
I didn't start a thread stating that keeping will improve the situation. I've only suggested that him resigning may not be a positive except for those who are looking to score political points. Political points won't improve the situation in Iraq one iota.
The burden is on the supporters of this thread making a strong case for how Rummy resigning will be a positive.
Detailed specifics would be nice (aka, a plan)
What's the plan now? What has it been for the past three years?Detailed specifics would be nice (aka, a plan)
All you've said is the status quo is is acceptable for another two years. The burden is on you to explain why.
Monotonous, isn't it?
Actually you brought up the fact that we are reviewing our policies, and I agreed. How is that suggesting that the status quo is acceptable?
I thought the latest was that we aren't necessarily "staying the course"?
There is only so much that could change given the overall military policy Rummy still espouses. If that policy has led to the current failures, how will they make anything better?Actually you brought up the fact that we are reviewing our policies, and I agreed. How is that suggesting that the status quo is acceptable?The latest was they stopped using that phrase because it wasn't testing well in focus groups.I thought the latest was that we aren't necessarily "staying the course"?
[QUOTE] Unless we have someone ready, willing and capable of reversing or improving the present situation, then we keep Rumsfeld and hope that the "review of policy" that you mentioned, improves the situation.
I think everyone's for improvement, just not into experimenting or yielding to the demands of a Party who's strong suit is complaining without presenting a viable solution.
There are plenty of qualified guys out there, and the review of policy won't change Rummy's mind about his "new" army.Unless we have someone ready, willing and capable of reversing or improving the present situation, then we keep Rumsfeld and hope that the "review of policy" that you mentioned, improves the situation.Were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq not treated as experiments themselves, I might be more inclined to stick with the unapologetic architect of those experiments.I think everyone's for improvement, just not into experimenting or yielding to the demands of a Party who's strong suit is complaining without presenting a viable solution.
Would you mind providing a list of the "plenty of qualified guys out there" who are ready, willing and capable of taking over for Rumsfeld?
Who has been asked?
Ok, for s and giggles just name people who would be qualified in handling this long operation.
I'm not thankful he loses wars to make a point.Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.THe Invasions themselves were done magnificently, we crushed any standing army in less than a couple of days.It's the peace which we are obligated by the UN to keep is what is being criticized here.Bull .
Rummy's invasion let Osama escape into Pakistan.
Rummy's invasion allowed for an insurgency to begin in Iraq.
It's nice that we can beat up on weakened, poorly led armies with little command and control infrastructure. I doubt any Defense Secretary could screw that up. Trying to pretend like the occupations aren't a direct result of the invasions, trying to pretend that Rummy has no responsibility for the way the occupations have gone and trying to pretend the only reason we are still there is the UN is the stupidest thing you have ever tried to pull here.
And that's saying something.
Only one living person on the planet is qualified to be Secretary of Defense?
No problemo.
Yep, you put you're foot in you're mouth on that one.We already dismissed the idea of Powell, but I'm still going to use him as an answer for my "plenty of qualilfied guys" comment. Can't come up with anything else.
Not to worry, it happens.
I'm not thankful he loses wars to make a point.
I know you weren't reffering to me. Because that's not what I said.
This is what i said....
<<<If we had had a different Sec. we would of just had more troops and probably a draft. Be thankful Rummy's modernized army and belief in a volunteer army is what makes you sit here all content and moan about his shortcomings. >>>
....You could see it on this very same thread page on response #40.
Was that ever in doubt? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Yes you were questoning the invasion
You just did below in this same post and you did before in response #38
"Were the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq not treated as experiments themselves, I might be more inclined to stick with the unapologetic architect of those experiments."
Rummy's invasion let Osama escape into Pakistan.
I thought you weren't questioning the greatness of the invasion.
Rummy's invasion allowed for an insurgency to begin in Iraq.
THere you go again.
It's nice that we can beat up on weakened, poorly led armies with little command and control infrastructure. I doubt any Defense Secretary could screw that up. Trying to pretend like the occupations aren't a direct result of the invasions, trying to pretend that Rummy has no responsibility for the way the occupations have gone and trying to pretend the only reason we are still there is the UN is the stupidest thing you have ever tried to pull here.
How bout trying not to contradict your own statements. Because you obviously have no point.
And that's saying something.
That nobody is questioning the invasion but yourself...gotcha!
You see,
that's why CHump just sticks to dissecting everyones individual sentences for s and giggles and hardly ever takes a stance.
Of course I am. You said I should be thankful. I'm not.I know you weren't reffering to me.Of course I question the invasion, idiot. They turned out really well, right? Mission accomplished, no continuing hostilities, our troops are on their way home, right?Yes you were questoning the invasionI don't question the brilliance of beating up on weak armies, but there is much more to it. If you want to cherry pick success, then by all means declare Rummy beyond reproach and perfect.I thought you weren't questioning the greatness of the invasion.My point is Rummy made critical mistakes in the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you're contention is he is perfect, say so.How bout trying not to contradict your own statements. Because you obviously have no point.Osama is very happy how the invasion went, since it allowed him to escape.That nobody is questioning the invasion but yourself...gotcha!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
