Donny Rumsfeld
Archived76 replies · 1,436 views
Taboo # 7 wrote: To quote Kevin from The Office:
"Uh...what are you guys doing?"
Can't we get any privacy around here?
Or is that what the room Popesy mentioned is for? 
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote: To quote Kevin from The Office:
"Uh...what are you guys doing?"
Can't we get any privacy around here?
Vacancy for TWO at the REFURBISHED!!
Quadrophenia
"BELL BOYYYY....BELL BOYYY!!"
Monty Does Dallas wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote: To quote Kevin from The Office:
"Uh...what are you guys doing?"
Can't we get any privacy around here?
Vacancy for TWO at the REFURBISHED!!
Quadrophenia
"BELL BOYYYY....BELL BOYYY!!"
Can you see the real me...if you're not too busy, you helpless dancer? :D
it'a about time this jackass resigned or, rather, that dubya allowed him to resign (he's tried twice before). he's an arrogant twat who doesn't listen to the military and has no idea whether he's coming or going. i hope he rots in hell.
Mixed feelings. Rumsfield had an issue of taking advice from Generals, so maybe a step in the right direction....however, this could also mean less support of the military, and leaving us out to dry.
EdelBrock wrote: Mixed feelings. Rumsfield had an issue of taking advice from Generals, so maybe a step in the right direction....however, this could also mean less support of the military, and leaving us out to dry.
Surely bringing the troops back home safely is key to not leaving them out to dry? 
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Mixed feelings. Rumsfield had an issue of taking advice from Generals, so maybe a step in the right direction....however, this could also mean less support of the military, and leaving us out to dry.
Surely bringing the troops back home safely is key to not leaving them out to dry?
Believe it or not, the troops mentality is that we don't need saving (as in bringing us home early). We want to finish the mission right, and if Rumsfeld resigning means we get better support, than good to go. If not, than our desire to finish the job will be ignored.
For the average person, it's just articles that they stop seeing....for us, there is blood from our brothers that went into this endevour.
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Mixed feelings. Rumsfield had an issue of taking advice from Generals, so maybe a step in the right direction....however, this could also mean less support of the military, and leaving us out to dry.
Surely bringing the troops back home safely is key to not leaving them out to dry?
Believe it or not, the troops mentality is that we don't need saving (as in bringing us home early). We want to finish the mission right, and if Rumsfeld resigning means we get better support, than good to go. If not, than our desire to finish the job will be ignored.
For the average person, it's just articles that they stop seeing....for us, there is blood from our brothers that went into this endevour.
ahm sorry. indeed there is the blood of your brothers. spilled why exactly again?
NOOLigan wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Mixed feelings. Rumsfield had an issue of taking advice from Generals, so maybe a step in the right direction....however, this could also mean less support of the military, and leaving us out to dry.
Surely bringing the troops back home safely is key to not leaving them out to dry?
Believe it or not, the troops mentality is that we don't need saving (as in bringing us home early). We want to finish the mission right, and if Rumsfeld resigning means we get better support, than good to go. If not, than our desire to finish the job will be ignored.
For the average person, it's just articles that they stop seeing....for us, there is blood from our brothers that went into this endevour.
ahm sorry. indeed there is the blood of your brothers. spilled why exactly again?
Without wrapping ourselves around the axle over the policies for starting the war, and focusing on the war today; pulling us out early is a really BAD idea.
People die in war, and it is an ugly truth. If we think it looks bad over there now, if we leave there will be genocide. (**ok, here comes a quick quip from someone about how it is already genocide). Iraq can not stabalize over night. And neither did any other country after a war. This will take time.
I say we stay until the Iraqi government is more stabalized.
EdelBrock wrote:
NOOLigan wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
His Holiness, The Pope wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Mixed feelings. Rumsfield had an issue of taking advice from Generals, so maybe a step in the right direction....however, this could also mean less support of the military, and leaving us out to dry.
Surely bringing the troops back home safely is key to not leaving them out to dry?
Believe it or not, the troops mentality is that we don't need saving (as in bringing us home early). We want to finish the mission right, and if Rumsfeld resigning means we get better support, than good to go. If not, than our desire to finish the job will be ignored.
For the average person, it's just articles that they stop seeing....for us, there is blood from our brothers that went into this endevour.
ahm sorry. indeed there is the blood of your brothers. spilled why exactly again?
Without wrapping ourselves around the axle over the policies for starting the war, and focusing on the war today; pulling us out early is a really BAD idea.
People die in war, and it is an ugly truth. If we think it looks bad over there now, if we leave there will be genocide. (**ok, here comes a quick quip from someone about how it is already genocide). Iraq can not stabalize over night. And neither did any other country after a war. This will take time.
I say we stay until the Iraqi government is more stabalized.
look you said it was about the blood of your brothers. It was Rummy's faulty advice that sent you there in the first place.
I agree that we can't just leave. That would be utterly irresponsible.
In my opinion, the best way to stabilize Iraq is to admit the obvious and let it happen. Iraq is not one nation; it's at least three nations: The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. A unified Iraq is a pipe dream. The Kurds want their own nation. The Shiites want either their own nation or the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The Sunnis want the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The obvious and only lasting solution to the mess is to let divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines and let each group govern in their own territory.
Sorry Edelbrock, but this is just too much to resist...
November 10, 2006
Marines Get the News From an Iraqi Host: Rumsfeld’s Out. ‘Who’s Rumsfeld?’
By C. J. CHIVERS
ZAGARIT, Iraq, Nov. 9 — Hashim al-Menti smiled wanly at the marine sergeant beside him on his couch. The sergeant had appeared in the darkness on Wednesday night, knocking on the door of Mr. Menti’s home.
When Mr. Menti answered, a squad of infantrymen swiftly moved in, making him an involuntary host.
Since then marines had been on his roof with rifles, watching roads where insurgents often planted bombs.
Mr. Menti had passed the time watching television. Now he had news. He spoke in broken English. “Rumsfeld is gone,” he told the sergeant, Michael A. McKinnon.
“Democracy,” he added, and made a thumbs-up sign. “Good.”
The marines had been on a continuous foot patrol for several days, hunting for insurgents. They were lost in the hard and isolating rhythms of infantry life.
They knew nothing of the week’s news.
Now they were being told by an Iraqi whose house they occupied that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, one of the principal architects of the policies that had them here, had resigned. “Rumsfeld is gone?” the sergeant asked. “Really?”
Mr. Menti nodded. “This is better for Iraq,” he said. “Iraqi people say thank you.”
The sergeant went upstairs to tell his marines, just as he had informed them the day before that the Republican Party had lost control of the House of Representatives and that Congress was in the midst of sweeping change. Mr. Menti had told them that, too.“Rumsfeld’s out,” he said to five marines sprawled with rifles on the cold floor.Lance Cpl. James L. Davis Jr. looked up from his cigarette. “Who’s Rumsfeld?” he asked.
If history is any guide, many of the young men who endure the severest hardships and assume the greatest risks in the war in Iraq will become interested in politics and politicians later, when they are older and look back on their combat tours.
But not yet. Marine infantry units have traditionally been nonpolitical, to the point of stubbornly embracing a peculiar detachment from policy currents at home. It is a pillar of the corps’ martial culture: those with the most at stake are among the least involved in the decisions that send them where they go.
Mr. Rumsfeld may have become one of the war’s most polarizing figures at home. But among these young marines slogging through the war in Anbar Province, he appeared to mean almost nothing. If he was another casualty, they had seen worse.
“Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense,” Sergeant McKinnon said, answering Lance Corporal Davis’s question.
Lance Corporal Davis simply cursed.
It did not sound like anger or disgust. It seemed instead to be an exclamation about the irrelevance of the news. The sergeant might as well have told the squad of yesterday’s weather.
Another marine, Lance Cpl. Patrick S. Maguire, said the decisions that mattered here, inside Company F, Second Battalion, Eighth Marines, were much more important to them than those made in the Pentagon back home.
There are daily, dangerous questions: When to go on patrol, when to come back, which route to take down a road, which weapon to carry, and, at this moment, which watch each marine would stand, crouched up on the roof, in the cold wind, exposed to sniper fire.
His grandfather fought at Iwo Jima, he said, and his father was a marine in Vietnam. This was his second tour in Iraq. “Here’s the deal,” he said. “Someone points a finger at you, and you go.”
“The chain of command?” he added. “You know how high I know? My battalion commander is Lt. Col. DeTreux. That’s how high I know.”
And so between the marines and Mr. Menti and his family, the split reactions to news of Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation made for surreal scenes.
Mr. Menti, 50, a radiologist by training, spent part of the afternoon trying to impress the meaning of the news on the young sergeant beside him on the couch.
The war policy was soon to change, he said.
“I think in one year you return to America,” he said.
The sergeant sat implacably.
“This is good for you,” Mr. Menti said. “No?”
He spoke of years of fear. Under Saddam Hussein, he said, they were afraid. Now, with the American troops and insurgents fighting in Anbar, they are still afraid. He returned to the news of Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation.
“People in America are very happy,” he said. “I saw this on TV. And I am very happy. Thank you, American people.”
He pointed at the young marines before him, smoking on his couches, drinking his hot, sweetened tea. “These soldiers, in Iraq, they make freedom?” he asked.
“Yes,” Sergeant McKinnon said.
“What kind of freedom?” he asked.
He had been talking about the living conditions in the province since the night before, when the marines appeared at his door.
There are almost no schools, he said. There is almost no medicine. There is little food, and no electricity except from generators. The list went on. No water. No work. Violence. Abductions. Beheadings. Explosions.
His son-in-law had been kidnapped by insurgents seven months ago, he said, and a note the insurgents left said he was abducted for being friendly with American troops. He has not been seen since.
In Baghdad, he said, Iranian-backed death squads were killing Sunni citizens. The country was falling apart.
“You like freedom?” he asked the sergeant. “This kind? This way?”
“No,” Sergeant McKinnon said.
“I think you and I and many people do not like freedom in this way,” he said. “I believe this. I am sure.”
“It is wrong, the American Army coming here. It is wrong.”
He looked at Sergeant McKinnon, who is younger than many of his 14 children. He was trying to draw him out.
“If American Army came here for three months, four months, O.K.” Mr. Menti said. “But now is four years.”
If there were no American military presence in Iraq, he said, there would be no insurgents. One serves as a magnet for the other.
Mr. Menti spoke to the sergeant as if he were an American diplomat, as if he had some influence over the broad sweeps of American foreign policy. The sergeant remained quiet and polite.
“I don’t think he realizes that we’re trying to make this country safer for him,” he said to Lance Corporal Maguire.
“I think he realizes that we’re trying to make it safe, but that the more we stay here the more people come in and make it worse,” Lance Corporal Maguire replied.
They went upstairs, to pack their gear for the next move, planned for after dark, to another house and another night of looking down on the roads, waiting for an insurgent with a bomb to step within range of a rifle shot.
Sergeant McKinnon spoke of the squad’s isolation. “I only found out yesterday that the Saddam trial was over,” he said. “Another Iraqi told me that.”
He turned to the task of planning for the night’s fire support.
Up on the roof, Lance Corporal Maguire mused about the news. Whatever Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation might eventually mean, it did not matter here yet, and it would not keep them alive tonight.
Another marine, Lance Cpl. Randall D. Webb, was scanning traffic through his rifle scope, worried that they had been spotted and the insurgents would soon know where they were.
“I think they see us,” he said.
“Man, they all see us,” Lance Corporal Maguire said, and lighted another cigarette.
I'm just surprised Bush didn't tap Walker, Texas Ranger to replace him
"What do you mean, he ain't real?" 
Taboo # 7 wrote: tap Walker, Texas Ranger to replace him
On a completely different note, a I found out quite recently a Marine of mine passed away recently in Iraq. A bit hard for me right now. We recieved a picture of him with Chuck Norris (when he visited Fallujah)a week before his death. We emailed Mr. Norris's website address, and he and his wife replied. I have to say I'm impressed. A good man in my book.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I agree that we can't just leave. That would be utterly irresponsible.
In my opinion, the best way to stabilize Iraq is to admit the obvious and let it happen. Iraq is not one nation; it's at least three nations: The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. A unified Iraq is a pipe dream. The Kurds want their own nation. The Shiites want either their own nation or the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The Sunnis want the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The obvious and only lasting solution to the mess is to let divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines and let each group govern in their own territory.
Politically, this is best; but monitarily it doesn't as the question then comes: "who get's the oil?"
On the article you posted, not suprised on a LCpl answering that way. LCpls, PFCs, and Pvts are new to the Corps and pretty much do as they are told as they trust their leaders. Cpls and above are the ones that I am talking about. The ones that are leading the men into battle, and have a bit more maturity to understand how politics effect our job.
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I agree that we can't just leave. That would be utterly irresponsible.
In my opinion, the best way to stabilize Iraq is to admit the obvious and let it happen. Iraq is not one nation; it's at least three nations: The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. A unified Iraq is a pipe dream. The Kurds want their own nation. The Shiites want either their own nation or the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The Sunnis want the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The obvious and only lasting solution to the mess is to let divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines and let each group govern in their own territory.
Politically, this is best; but monitarily it doesn't as the question then comes: "who get's the oil?"
so it was about oil and not WMDs.
NOOLigan wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I agree that we can't just leave. That would be utterly irresponsible.
In my opinion, the best way to stabilize Iraq is to admit the obvious and let it happen. Iraq is not one nation; it's at least three nations: The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. A unified Iraq is a pipe dream. The Kurds want their own nation. The Shiites want either their own nation or the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The Sunnis want the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The obvious and only lasting solution to the mess is to let divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines and let each group govern in their own territory.
Politically, this is best; but monitarily it doesn't as the question then comes: "who get's the oil?"
so it was about oil and not WMDs.
???
If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.
EdelBrock wrote:
NOOLigan wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I agree that we can't just leave. That would be utterly irresponsible.
In my opinion, the best way to stabilize Iraq is to admit the obvious and let it happen. Iraq is not one nation; it's at least three nations: The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. A unified Iraq is a pipe dream. The Kurds want their own nation. The Shiites want either their own nation or the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The Sunnis want the reins of power in a unified Iraq. The obvious and only lasting solution to the mess is to let divide Iraq along ethnic and religious lines and let each group govern in their own territory.
Politically, this is best; but monitarily it doesn't as the question then comes: "who get's the oil?"
so it was about oil and not WMDs.
???
If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.
let me remind you. there was actually a functioning state in place before your little visit.
mind you not a nice regime, but there are a few more states like that out there as well.
EdelBrock wrote: If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.
The Kurds want that, so why do we care if they don't have oil?
The Shiites want that, and they have oil, and are in the majority.
The Sunnis don't want that, and they don't have oil, but they are a minority, so why should they dicate the future of the Kurds and the Shiites?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.
The Kurds want that, so why do we care if they don't have oil?
The Shiites want that, and they have oil, and are in the majority.
The Sunnis don't want that, and they don't have oil, but they are a minority, so why should they dicate the future of the Kurds and the Shiites?
Although they definately don't mix well together, if they can form a stable nation it has a chance to survive. Split like you are talking, Iran would overtake it. Iran wants Iraq badly, and mark my words. If we leave early, Iran will take it over (after a good bloody genocide has happened of course)
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.
The Kurds want that, so why do we care if they don't have oil?
The Shiites want that, and they have oil, and are in the majority.
The Sunnis don't want that, and they don't have oil, but they are a minority, so why should they dicate the future of the Kurds and the Shiites?
Although they definately don't mix well together, if they can form a stable nation it has a chance to survive. Split like you are talking, Iran would overtake it. Iran wants Iraq badly, and mark my words. If we leave early, Iran will take it over (after a good bloody genocide has happened of course)
I just had an idea.
let's invade Iran. then we can leave Iraq.
Shit better not tell W, he might just see that as a viable exit strategy.
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.
The Kurds want that, so why do we care if they don't have oil?
The Shiites want that, and they have oil, and are in the majority.
The Sunnis don't want that, and they don't have oil, but they are a minority, so why should they dicate the future of the Kurds and the Shiites?
Although they definately don't mix well together, if they can form a stable nation it has a chance to survive. Split like you are talking, Iran would overtake it. Iran wants Iraq badly, and mark my words. If we leave early, Iran will take it over (after a good bloody genocide has happened of course)
Shouldn't that (union with Iraq) be up to the Shiites to decide for themselves?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: If the country was split along religious ties, the Shiites would get all the oil and the Kurds, Sunnis would be left in barren deserts with not much to offer to make a decent country.
The Kurds want that, so why do we care if they don't have oil?
The Shiites want that, and they have oil, and are in the majority.
The Sunnis don't want that, and they don't have oil, but they are a minority, so why should they dicate the future of the Kurds and the Shiites?
Although they definately don't mix well together, if they can form a stable nation it has a chance to survive. Split like you are talking, Iran would overtake it. Iran wants Iraq badly, and mark my words. If we leave early, Iran will take it over (after a good bloody genocide has happened of course)
Shouldn't that (union with Iraq) be up to the Shiites to decide for themselves?
You're mistaking Iraqis for people that are accustomed to think for themselves. They first have to understand that they can control they're own personal future, before they can decide on a government themselves. baby steps.....baby steps.
EdelBrock wrote: You're mistaking Iraqis for people that are accustomed to think for themselves. They first have to understand that they can control they're own personal future, before they can decide on a government themselves. baby steps.....baby steps.
BS. Whether they can think for themselves or not, it's not up to us to decide whther they will be one state or three. It's not up to us to decide whether they will unite with iran or remain independent.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: You're mistaking Iraqis for people that are accustomed to think for themselves. They first have to understand that they can control they're own personal future, before they can decide on a government themselves. baby steps.....baby steps.
BS. Whether they can think for themselves or not, it's not up to us to decide whther they will be one state or three. It's not up to us to decide whether they will unite with iran or remain independent.
So you think that a 10 year old kid, who just inherited 10 million dollars (or pounds) should have full rights, right then and there, to spend it all, and not have it in a bank account that they can't access 100% until they are of age?
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: You're mistaking Iraqis for people that are accustomed to think for themselves. They first have to understand that they can control they're own personal future, before they can decide on a government themselves. baby steps.....baby steps.
BS. Whether they can think for themselves or not, it's not up to us to decide whther they will be one state or three. It's not up to us to decide whether they will unite with iran or remain independent.
So you think that a 10 year old kid, who just inherited 10 million dollars (or pounds) should have full rights, right then and there, to spend it all, and not have it in a bank account that they can't access 100% until they are of age?
I think that if a nation of people votes to form a nation, it's not up to us to stop them. if we're concerned about "maturity," then it's up to us to help them stabilize. But it's not up to us to prevent them from forming a nation, under the guise of "we know best."
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: You're mistaking Iraqis for people that are accustomed to think for themselves. They first have to understand that they can control they're own personal future, before they can decide on a government themselves. baby steps.....baby steps.
BS. Whether they can think for themselves or not, it's not up to us to decide whther they will be one state or three. It's not up to us to decide whether they will unite with iran or remain independent.
So you think that a 10 year old kid, who just inherited 10 million dollars (or pounds) should have full rights, right then and there, to spend it all, and not have it in a bank account that they can't access 100% until they are of age?
I think that if a nation of people votes to form a nation, it's not up to us to stop them. if we're concerned about "maturity," then it's up to us to help them stabilize. But it's not up to us to prevent them from forming a nation, under the guise of "we know best."
This last statement I completely agree with, but it has to be through the majority vote, not by religious lines.
