Forums » Off-Topic
in a joint editorial, the 4 u.s. mil branches are releasing an editorial asking for rumsfeld to go. or else.
http://www.armytimes.com/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/
http://www.navytimes.com/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
all are publishing this same article:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
yeah baby!
http://www.armytimes.com/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/
http://www.navytimes.com/
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/
all are publishing this same article:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333360.php
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
yeah baby!
no baby....
The 'us army', nor any branch of the military, does not make statements about civilian leadership. 'The army times', etc, are not part of the military; they are independent, civilian publications produced by a non-governmental corporation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Times_Media_Group). And Rumsfeld is not part of the military; he is the civilian leadership, democratically elected.
The article mentions that many military leaders are expressing problems with strategy, results, etc. But none of them with any respect for the constitution would say 'rumsfeld has to go' in a public statement. And no good liberal would expect them to.
Only in a dictatorship does the military decides who rules. Just look at congo for example. or uganda. burma. nazi germany. china. spain. chile. argentina. the soviet union. yugoslavia. Or dozens of other examples in the 20th century.
That is why it is frowned upon for soldiers to talk about who they want in power, at least while the soldiers are on active duty. It would smack of a military coup, something which goes against every principle the US is supposed to stand for.
The 'us army', nor any branch of the military, does not make statements about civilian leadership. 'The army times', etc, are not part of the military; they are independent, civilian publications produced by a non-governmental corporation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Times_Media_Group). And Rumsfeld is not part of the military; he is the civilian leadership, democratically elected.
The article mentions that many military leaders are expressing problems with strategy, results, etc. But none of them with any respect for the constitution would say 'rumsfeld has to go' in a public statement. And no good liberal would expect them to.
Only in a dictatorship does the military decides who rules. Just look at congo for example. or uganda. burma. nazi germany. china. spain. chile. argentina. the soviet union. yugoslavia. Or dozens of other examples in the 20th century.
That is why it is frowned upon for soldiers to talk about who they want in power, at least while the soldiers are on active duty. It would smack of a military coup, something which goes against every principle the US is supposed to stand for.
actually, the usa is not a democracy.
it's a (federal) republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_democratic_states
edit:
and rumsfeld, bush and the other oil minions of halliburton couldn't care less about votes. they have their own system to take care of the public opinion: diebold.
edit 2:
and to answer your question, the *times.com sites above are publishing a letter from the active-duty generals.
that editorial is their take on the letter to be published on monday.
read again: active generals. i'd call that active duty men from the official mil branches.
it's a (federal) republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_democratic_states
edit:
and rumsfeld, bush and the other oil minions of halliburton couldn't care less about votes. they have their own system to take care of the public opinion: diebold.
edit 2:
and to answer your question, the *times.com sites above are publishing a letter from the active-duty generals.
that editorial is their take on the letter to be published on monday.
read again: active generals. i'd call that active duty men from the official mil branches.
i dont know what you are talking about. it doesnt mention any 'letter' being published on monday. it mentions an editorial in the army times, navy times, etc, which , again, are not military publications.
i am sure you had some point to your original post. but saying something like 'yay, the military is kicking out rumsfeld' is not something anyone who considers themselves a liberal should be cheering about.
i am sure you had some point to your original post. but saying something like 'yay, the military is kicking out rumsfeld' is not something anyone who considers themselves a liberal should be cheering about.
Please do, ananzi!
Isn't that kind of shit just infuriating, Ananzi... You know you're right, your points are good and accurate, but all the morons of the world refuse to go along with the program.
So, I'm assuming you saw this on Daily Kos? What irks me isn't the editorial, the attitude of the generals in the field (which I share), or the stubbornness of the Bush administration.
What irks me is when folks cheer for discord and conflict, simply because they're politically against the Bush administration. It's very "Nelson Munt" of you, uc.
What irks me is when folks cheer for discord and conflict, simply because they're politically against the Bush administration. It's very "Nelson Munt" of you, uc.
lexicon everybody cheers when the 'other side' has internal conflict. thats not what im talking about.
no one is cheering for discord. people like me are cheering for the end of a wrong and utter bs conflict brought up by people who have only but their bottom line to care for.
forget that 600,000+ casualties recently reported by amnesty international. even i don't swallow it.
go with the more more conservative 'iraqbodycount.org/database/' estimate: 45,000 people, at a strict minimum as reported by the press, have died as a direct result of false allegations of wmds.
the u.s. solders who are devoting their lives for your country are being butchered for no reason. they are your friends, brothers, sister, fathers and mothers.
forget that 600,000+ casualties recently reported by amnesty international. even i don't swallow it.
go with the more more conservative 'iraqbodycount.org/database/' estimate: 45,000 people, at a strict minimum as reported by the press, have died as a direct result of false allegations of wmds.
the u.s. solders who are devoting their lives for your country are being butchered for no reason. they are your friends, brothers, sister, fathers and mothers.
It's this generation's Vietnam War.
Except that, without a Draft, there won't be any massive protests as per the original Vietnam War to show just how tired the American public is of this war and the constant lies coming from the Lie House.
It's nothing like Vietnam... for one thing we have an actual vital economic interest in the region. (Oil, obviously)
Vietnam was cold war bullshit... we're friendly with both China (umm... sorta friendly with China anyways) and Vietnam now... so 100's of thousands of people died for absolutely nothing... we would have had diplomatic (and semi-friendly) relations with them sooner even, had not those people been sacrificed on the altar of Politics.
But, remember kids:
War is Peace... So, let us bring peace unto the unbelievers. And let not our resolve be made weak by those that would we should lay down among the lions. Amen!
So it is written. So mote it be.
EDIT: On rereading this it seems I am defending or perhaps even advocating the continuance (or initiation even) of the war in Iraq... I am not. It's utter bullshit too but of a different nature. The War is Peace bit was (clearly?) meant as satire.
Vietnam was cold war bullshit... we're friendly with both China (umm... sorta friendly with China anyways) and Vietnam now... so 100's of thousands of people died for absolutely nothing... we would have had diplomatic (and semi-friendly) relations with them sooner even, had not those people been sacrificed on the altar of Politics.
But, remember kids:
War is Peace... So, let us bring peace unto the unbelievers. And let not our resolve be made weak by those that would we should lay down among the lions. Amen!
So it is written. So mote it be.
EDIT: On rereading this it seems I am defending or perhaps even advocating the continuance (or initiation even) of the war in Iraq... I am not. It's utter bullshit too but of a different nature. The War is Peace bit was (clearly?) meant as satire.
No not so clearly. Until your edit I was considering making fun of you. Mostly about your spelling, which I find irks some people more than making fun of their politics, myself included :)
Spelling? What did I misspell? My grammar perhaps you can make fun of, I kinda use my own... erm... style. (lots of ellipses and parentheses for instance) But, I just looked over my post very carefully... I defy you to find a single misspelled word. :P
And if you took the War is Peace part seriously... there's something wrong with your head... or there's a lot more wack-jobs posting serious insanity then I was aware.
But I think you're just trying to irk me.
And if you took the War is Peace part seriously... there's something wrong with your head... or there's a lot more wack-jobs posting serious insanity then I was aware.
But I think you're just trying to irk me.
Rumsfeld RESIGNED.
yup. after a democratic election by civilians.
Only problem seems to be, the Dems don't have an idea about what to do in Iraq, either.
they should start by cutting down on some of those dictatorship-like powers bush gave himself, like
- imprisonment without charges
- stripping of your rights if declared enemy combatant
- secret prisons
- interrogation techniques details put in light
then, i think, the dems need to
- examine budget allocations and find those lost millions (last i heard, some half billion was unaccounted for).
- plan with iraq gov to get the troops out of iraq with help from un, iraq and damnit the middle eastern communities (it's time they get involved too)
- bring rummy & friends in front of congress and subpoena the hell out of them
and while we're at it, it'd be nice to have an independent comity have a hard look at the whole 9/11 thing.
- imprisonment without charges
- stripping of your rights if declared enemy combatant
- secret prisons
- interrogation techniques details put in light
then, i think, the dems need to
- examine budget allocations and find those lost millions (last i heard, some half billion was unaccounted for).
- plan with iraq gov to get the troops out of iraq with help from un, iraq and damnit the middle eastern communities (it's time they get involved too)
- bring rummy & friends in front of congress and subpoena the hell out of them
and while we're at it, it'd be nice to have an independent comity have a hard look at the whole 9/11 thing.
imprisonment without charges:
The United States military has detained Prisoners of War that it has captured during ongoing operations in many countries. Of course, there is no nation to barter with for the release of these POW's. I guess that's the downside to asymmetric warfare - if you're captured, you've got no one negotiating for your release, and that works both ways.
stripping of your rights if declared enemy combatant:
uc, You're assuming (like many folks) that the United States is somehow required to bestow to non-citizens the same rights it grants to its own citizens. It should not. It should follow the geneva convention and basic human rights, juse because we're the good guys here and we should be an example.
secret prisons
Well, if everyone knew where they were, then those prisons would be at risk, especially the ones that are "In-Theatre".
interrogation techniques details put in light
Well, we've heard it said that "The United States does not torture." I believe that. Waterboarding and that ilk are far less than what "torture" passes for in other countries, especially in what used to be the Baath party's Iraq. Good thing someone took care of that regime.
Dems need to examine budget allocations and find those lost millions (last i heard, some half billion was unaccounted for).
I have not heard that, but then again I'm not a reader of Daily Kos. If money is being mis-spent (as in $100 hammers and such), then I'm all for slamming cuffs on everyone responsible.
Dems need to plan with iraq gov to get the troops out of iraq with help from un, iraq and damnit the middle eastern communities (it's time they get involved too)
Gosh, I'm glad the Democrats are here to do that. Cause it's not like the Republicans have been trying to extricate themselves from Iraq since 2004. I hear the Republicans LIKE unpopular wars and LOVE being voted out of office!
Dems need to bring rummy & friends in front of congress and subpoena the hell out of them
For what? Bad hair? This just smacks of a revenge & retribution witch-hunt, and I'll have none of that, no matter who's running the Congress.
Dems need to ... have an independent comity have a hard look at the whole 9/11 thing.
OMG. Are we still on the "Bush planned 9/11" thing? I mean, come ON. Haven't the last 6 years demonstrated that there's no WAY the Bush white house could have pulled that off in secret? I'm willing to listen to evidence that a secret group of industrialists pulled it off, or the Freemasons, or space aliens from the planet Zorg, but Bush? Please. He can barely spit out the rhetoric that Rove writes for him.
The United States military has detained Prisoners of War that it has captured during ongoing operations in many countries. Of course, there is no nation to barter with for the release of these POW's. I guess that's the downside to asymmetric warfare - if you're captured, you've got no one negotiating for your release, and that works both ways.
stripping of your rights if declared enemy combatant:
uc, You're assuming (like many folks) that the United States is somehow required to bestow to non-citizens the same rights it grants to its own citizens. It should not. It should follow the geneva convention and basic human rights, juse because we're the good guys here and we should be an example.
secret prisons
Well, if everyone knew where they were, then those prisons would be at risk, especially the ones that are "In-Theatre".
interrogation techniques details put in light
Well, we've heard it said that "The United States does not torture." I believe that. Waterboarding and that ilk are far less than what "torture" passes for in other countries, especially in what used to be the Baath party's Iraq. Good thing someone took care of that regime.
Dems need to examine budget allocations and find those lost millions (last i heard, some half billion was unaccounted for).
I have not heard that, but then again I'm not a reader of Daily Kos. If money is being mis-spent (as in $100 hammers and such), then I'm all for slamming cuffs on everyone responsible.
Dems need to plan with iraq gov to get the troops out of iraq with help from un, iraq and damnit the middle eastern communities (it's time they get involved too)
Gosh, I'm glad the Democrats are here to do that. Cause it's not like the Republicans have been trying to extricate themselves from Iraq since 2004. I hear the Republicans LIKE unpopular wars and LOVE being voted out of office!
Dems need to bring rummy & friends in front of congress and subpoena the hell out of them
For what? Bad hair? This just smacks of a revenge & retribution witch-hunt, and I'll have none of that, no matter who's running the Congress.
Dems need to ... have an independent comity have a hard look at the whole 9/11 thing.
OMG. Are we still on the "Bush planned 9/11" thing? I mean, come ON. Haven't the last 6 years demonstrated that there's no WAY the Bush white house could have pulled that off in secret? I'm willing to listen to evidence that a secret group of industrialists pulled it off, or the Freemasons, or space aliens from the planet Zorg, but Bush? Please. He can barely spit out the rhetoric that Rove writes for him.