Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Donald Rumsfeld Quits
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10183		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Donald Rumsfeld Quits
Here is the article.


In my opinion, it's about time. I just hope when Former CIA Cheif Robert Gates takes over he does a better job with Iraq than Rummy.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Geez, I was wondering when he'd finally leave. Seriously, he's like that friend you invite over, and they get annoying and you want 'em to leave, but you can't just tell 'em to leave 'cause that's rude, and you're like "d00d, I gotta get stuffs done!" and he's all like "taht's cool, I'll just play ur video games till ur done", and I'm like "d00d, freaking leave!" and he's like "d00d! way 2 be a jerk!"

Exactly like that.
Author:  ramrod [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:42 am ]
Post subject: 
I doubt that he just decided to "quit". He was forced out by Bush and co., and they both probably wanted to save face and said that he resigned.
Author:  DarkSideOfTheSchwartz [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Actually, he wasn't doing that bad of a job with Iraq. We have now handed at least half of the country over to the iraqi government
Author:  Inverse Tiger [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not that bad of a job, eh? ...tell that to the tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi civiliians dead as a result of our invasion. His dogmatic devotion to his particular ideas of how the military should be and his assumptions that our invasion would be greeted with flowers and everything would magically fall into place meant we went into the war with a too-low number of soldiers that weren't trained for the job they were asked to do. Forget whether we should have gone to war in the first place, the way it was executed was a total joke. The least we could have done is to do it right.

So the Iraqi government has half the place. That's wonderful. What about the other half? Is it even possible they could get that under control? I hope so, but it's worse in that half now than ever. Just as a matter of national responsibility, I'd like to see us stay until iraq is fixed up right. But we have to ask if that's even possible anymore. And if it's not, then why waste any more of our lives over there?

(What I don't get about the idea that leaving Iraq would be a disgrace to the troops is this: isn't any retreat in history then a disgrace to the troops? Should no one retreat ever, even when it becomes clear that winning is impossible? Isn't there a point at which keeping troops in an unwinnable situation is a disgrace, too?)

If we have to retreat, the blame for that "slap in the face to our troops" lies completely with Rumsfeld and Bush for their failed non-strategy, which the military types knew beforehand wouldn't work and said so. Even the accounting types knew this war would cost many times more than they said it would before it even started. I remember those news reports from back then. Bush fired the budget guy who said that publicly. Guess what, folks, we have experts for a reason. They didn't listen and they screwed up.

Glad he's gone. He should probably sequester himself in a mansion somewhere so he doesn't run across any disgruntled vets the rest of his life. Maybe this Gates guy can listen to some people who know what they're talking about to figure a way we can save Iraq. If not, we need out of there.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Inverse Tiger wrote:
Maybe this Gates guy can listen to some people who know what they're talking about to figure a way we can save Iraq. If not, we need out of there.
Well Robert Gates should know his way around Iraq considering he was CIA director during Bush 41. He was one of the ones that told Bush 41 not to go after Saddam and with good reason.

Wikipedia wrote:
His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq".
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
the semi-nepotism in this administration irks me. rummy, cheney, and now the new secy. of defense are all Elder Bush people, not to mention former AG Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, etc. maybe if they actually appointed people based on something besides who was tight with Pappy, i'd feel a bit better. Still, i'm looking forward to having someone new.

right, this is the perfect place to put this. Charges are being sought against Rumsfeld with Germany's top prosecutor, for prisoner abuse issues. Article Here. Basically, what it says is that charges are planning on being filed because of things like Abu Ghraib, which seems like it wasn't an isolated incident. que the arguments.....NOW!
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
My only question right now about the Rumsfield-being-prosecuted thing is this:

Why on earth is Germany involved?
Author:  Exhibit A [ Sat Nov 11, 2006 10:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
My only question right now about the Rumsfield-being-prosecuted thing is this:

Why on earth is Germany involved?

The way I understand it, Germany has a law saying that they can prosecute people outside their country with war crimes. It dates back to post-WWII, and was made so they could prosecute fleeing Nazis.
Author:  putitinyourshoe [ Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
i'm there with you, lahi. i'm pretty dang confused, too. but what exhibit A said makes perfect sense. after all, they held trials in Nuremburg after WWII. i have a feeling not too much will come of it all, however.

i mean, the way things work now, if he was really responsible for War Crimes (capital letters and such) he'd probably be getting it from the U.N. and the war crimes tribunal type stuff in the Hague. but i wonder if the rest of the world would honor it if such a trial happened. i wonder if american would honor it? i mean Germany is one of America's allies, and one of the most economically powerful nations in the EU (no citation. don't jump on me if i'm wrong. i'm pretty sure its up there, though)
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/