Should Rumsfield Go To a Secret CIA Prison?
Army general says Rumsfeld refused to plan for post-war Iraq - http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/15473180.htm
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
What a slimy fuck.
son of parnas
September 9th, 2006 7:28pm
Borders on treason, doesn't it, willfully failing to plan sufficiently in such a manner that directly leads to the deaths of US troops.
They crossed that border a long time ago.
son of parnas
September 9th, 2006 7:33pm
Why do people care so much more about the US troops (who presumably signed up for war) than the Iraqi civilians who really didn't get a say in anything?
September 9th, 2006 7:34pm
Because we can't bring charges of treason for killing people of other countries, only our own.
So? Would you be less pissed at a murderer who escaped from a country the US didn't have an extradition treaty with?
September 9th, 2006 7:38pm
I try to concern myself with the things we have a vague hope of doing...which means I should give up on this train of thought anyway.
victim of my own heritage
September 9th, 2006 7:54pm
I'd really like to see one of these bastards (Rumsfeld and his hawks) charged with war crimes and put on trial in an international court.
September 9th, 2006 7:56pm
what are you snorting for?
September 9th, 2006 7:57pm
Senator, Iraq Is No Viet Nam
War continues in Iraq. They're calling it Operation Iraqi Freedom. They were going to call it Operation Iraqi Liberation until they realised that spells "OIL."
- Jay Leno
pulled that out of here http://www.flatrock.org.nz
(the bloke's got a fine eye for absurd).
September 9th, 2006 11:12pm
"Why do people care so much more about the US troops (who presumably signed up for war) than the Iraqi civilians who really didn't get a say in anything?"
Rumsfeld has an obligation to these troops. A direct, sworn, obligation. Yes, it sucks that he does not have a direct obligation to the Iraqui people, but he doesn't.
September 10th, 2006 12:05am
>"Why do people care so much more about the US troops (who presumably signed up for war) than the Iraqi civilians who really didn't get a say in anything?"
Because the public was brainwashed into "caring" about the troops. Just take a look at all those yellow ribbon magnets and "support our troops" stickers that serve in lieu of actual thought or actual "supporting" of troops.
September 10th, 2006 12:29am
let's be honest.
before this crap started, the whole fucking world was trying to say "this will take you a lor fucking longer to get out of than it will to get into (please look at history)"
But for the most part, the US didn't want to know. I know there was a *minority* in the US that agreed, but mostly they were too scared to even open their mouths.
So it wasn't just Rumsfeld, even though he is a creep. But that creep was telling people what they wanted to hear.
September 10th, 2006 1:29am
right, even though what they wanted to hear was _wrong_.
seriously, "we were just telling people what they wanted to hear" is possibly the _worst_ excuse for governmental failure there is. The whole _point_ of having a government is that there are some things too important to be left up to the individual to decide.
If the government isn't taking that responsibility, then wtf do we have it for?
September 10th, 2006 2:23am
it ain't an excuse for him saying it. what I'm saying is that responsibility is not limited to him.
September 10th, 2006 2:26am
what you should be thinking about is "what are we being told *now* that is just comfort-zone horseshit, and where are the people brave enough to try to speak some truth? and whois supporting them?"
September 10th, 2006 2:28am
"what I'm saying is that responsibility is not limited to him."
huh? who is saying it is? regardless of that however, a _lot_ of responsibility _is_ limited to him, and he should burn in hell for it. seriously, there is very few things anyone could do to rumsfeld that would bother me, that guy is absolutely terrifying to anyone with the intelligence to see him.
"what you should be thinking about is "what are we being told *now* that is just comfort-zone horseshit, and where are the people brave enough to try to speak some truth? and whois supporting them?"
That is both true and false (at the same time, you have achieved a kind of zen beyond most people).
The bush administration has made 'fire and motion' its modus operandi...people are so busy being outraged by the current issue that they are inclined to forget the previous one...it takes a very special type of person to step back and continue hammering at a point that the public have entirely forgotten in their outrage at whatever-the-fuck-the-government-is-doing-now.
therefore, although clearly you have to keep your eye on the ball....to stop the bush administration you also need to reframe its older issues in such a way as to keep them relevant.
that fire and motion thing is shifting though, bush is out and the republicans are using it not to justify his current incompetency but to distance themselves from him entirely.
September 10th, 2006 2:43am
>Rumsfeld has an obligation to these troops. A direct,
>sworn, obligation. Yes, it sucks that he does not have a
>direct obligation to the Iraqui people, but he doesn't.
He has an obligation towards them as a human being. Fuck the legalities.
September 10th, 2006 8:38am
General Shinseki said that taking and holding Iraq would take 400,000 troops. That was 10x what Rumsfeld and the neocons were willing to accept - since they chose to listen to Iranian agents such as Ahmed Chalabi instead of their own intelligence and military agencies - so they fired Shinseki. Taking the country indeed needed troops in the low 5-digit range, but as history has shown us, we sure can't keep the country with low 6-digits. And these incompetent idiots want to repeat the same fiasco with Iran.
Should Rumsfeld go to a secret prison? Not really, he should be executed on national TV. I haven't decided between:
1 - Good old fashioned necktie party,
2 - Firing squad,
3 - Beheading by masked goons and dull knife,
4 - Feet first into woodchipper,
5 - Boiling in Oil - does pyrex make a transparent container that big?
6 - Hung, drawn and quartered.
An to top it off, we (NATO) are about to lose Afghanistan back to the Taliban because of Rummy and bush's gross negligence and incompentence (and Pakistan's surrender). And Afghanistan is back to growing opium in pre-taliban levels.
Pakistan signs peace treaty with Taliban and surrenders in gwot:
>"[A] more significant development is an underhand deal between pro-al-Qaeda elements and Pakistan in which key al-Qaeda figures will either not be arrested or those already in custody will be set free. This has the potential to sour Islamabad's relations with Washington beyond the point of no return."
For those who can't be bothered to remember, Pakistan was the country trading nuclear technology to our most beloved countries such as Libya, North Korea and Iran.
September 10th, 2006 11:11am
> he should be executed on national TV
How about by electroshock where the voltage is controlled by the debt and the number of people killed in oilland?
son of parnas
September 10th, 2006 1:32pm
I don't think you'll have to worry about Bush invading Iran. I'm not sure that the military would stand for it, and NATO is clearly going to need all of its members to pitch in with Afghanistan pretty soon. We've left too many sympathizers there, and the rest of NATO is paying the price now.
great to fantasise that some form of overt public brutality, a la Roman Empire, would in some way help the situiation, but ....
September 10th, 2006 3:32pm
>great to fantasize that some form of overt public brutality...
We do that all the time with the videos of "smart bombs" on TV and all those Youtube-type snuff videos going around the web where one watches Iraqis/Bosnians/etc getting killed. Many folks call it "milporn" nowadays.
September 10th, 2006 6:13pm