Rumsfeld Offers Optimistic View of Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 5, 2005.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    (emphasis mine)

    wow, that's quite a new standard, eh? we can declare success in iraq even though there are still attacks!

    i see the road to declaring victory and withdrawing before the midterm elections is being paved.
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Rather similar to "Whatever the US does is legal". How long can these bastards take us all for fools?
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    He is seriously deluded.
     
  4. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #4
    I understood it was Rumsfeld's goal to 'modernise' the US Army - by reducing the number of regular Soldiers (paychecks and ) and increase the use of 'smart' munitions and advanced communications.

    Less bodybags, in return for some fat paychecks for their arms exec friends.

    Iraq was to be the proving ground for this, by catching the Iraq army in the desert, out in the open - off course they've ended up embroiled in street fighting, which needs soldiers on the ground.

    Based on the comments that have come out of the Bush team, I really think they expect the insurgents just to kindly roll over and give up fighting. That'll never happen.

    - He has a personal agenda to make the Iraq war appear successful
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Well, he's succeeded in the first aim: there are 2,000 less regular soldiers.
     
  6. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
  7. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #7
    On the other hand...

    http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C36A87B9-63A0-4CDE-AA91-B41571AFD3AF

    Extract:
    Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq
    LAST UPDATE: 12/5/2005 6:26:32 PM
    Posted By: Jim Forsyth
    This story is available on your cell phone at mobile.woai.com.
    (SAN ANTONIO) -- Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years.
     
  8. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #8
    i'm just curious about the difference between a "positive stance" and propaganda. obviously, they both have the absence of truth as a common denominator.

    and trying to change the definition of success seems to fit right in with the propagan...errr, positive stance of this administration.

    just keep repeating "we're winning".....
     
  9. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #9
    Hmm...is that true of the United States? :rolleyes:
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    beat me to that one...just what I was thinking.
     
  11. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #11
    Wow. I'll have whatever he's smoking.

    Especially since they will just keep fighting for years for their cause, while our patience is waning. There are still the ~30% who will follow GW into Hell, but since I don't see all them going off to fight in his wars the way the insurgents do, I don't think we have a chance.

    We can't win, we can't just leave... Vietnam anyone?
     
  12. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #12
    If history is anything to go by, not many countries win 'wars' against terrorists.
     
  13. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #13
    One needs to stop defining a good economy as how well Americans are performing financially.

    One needs to stop defining securing Social Security in terms of how secure it is.

    One needs to stop defining sucessful education reform as having kids get smarter.

    One needs to stop defining successful foreign relations as having other countries willfully associating with you.
     
  14. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    one needs to stop defining democracy as government either by or for the people.
     
  15. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #15
    IMO it's made much worse by the term 'Al Qaeda' and how most 'terrorist' organisations seem to be lumped under the same, easy to remember, banner.

    It just confuses the seperate issues, within different countries - which we've heard is actually what governments want - the public scared of the boogie man, as per the cold war with Russia.

    At least with individual groups you can attempt to identify and control them, makes the job much harder to do using a global banner or working against a believe system as Al Qaeda has become.
     
  16. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    More like a make-believe system. Immovable object, meet irresistible force. How are you going to make it impossible for your political organization to be perverted like this again?
     
  17. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    for a (somewhat) recent example of this see "The Battle of Algiers" - an excellent movie about a fascinating subject.

    To those who don't know the story, the French, with great effort and questionable tactics managed to put down a drive for independence by Algierian "terrorists". Although France eventually won the contest, it cost them so much in so many ways, that Algieria got it's independence not too much later.

    I think that's right - I have the flu and maybe the medicine is talking...
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    At a cost of up to one million dead. The only successful example of counter-insurgency I know of was the Brits in Malaya, 1948-1960. 11,000 dead in total (both sides). Could the low death toll be significant? It's "hearts and minds" of course, rather than "shock and awe". Doesn't anybody do History any more?

    bf, sorry you're flued out. Try Gelsemium or Pulsatilla. Works for me every time.:)
     
  19. iPhil macrumors 68040

    iPhil

    #19

    That's my thinking for the past year or so .. This is GWB's Vietnam.. :rolleyes: Still he's "NOT" on the front lines with his forces..

    Iraq war won't be over in 2 years,if another republican is elected as president in 2008 then it'll be another 4 years in iraq to 'help' GWB's image out.. IMHO
    :eek:
     
  20. Stella macrumors 604

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #20
    Too right.

    I put wars in quotes for this reason - and was thinking about putting terrorists in quotes because I couldn't think of another word - hey - i'd been up for 10 minutes at the time of writing!


    One person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter / just cause.

     
  21. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #21
    Not true. Terrorists target noncombatants. Freedom fighters target government and military. So an insurgent who blows up a car bomb at a US-manned checkpoint is a freedom fighter, but if they blow up the car bomb at a crowded bus terminal, they're a terrorist.
     
  22. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #22
    Makes sense.

    What if the terrorist and the freedom fighter have the same goals? ie) removing an occupying force. Are any tactics that acheive the stated goal acceptable?

    What would Dick Cheney's answer be?

    One could say that Bush has shown callous disregard for civilian lives in Iraq. Is he a terrorist or a freedom fighter? You could make a case either way.

    Must freedom fighters be native?
     

Share This Page