Donald Rumsfeld Resigns

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 09 Nov 2006 11:15 am

And it's about bloody time!

Source

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 09 Nov 2006 11:25 am

50,000+ deaths too late, perhaps.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 09 Nov 2006 11:35 am

I was watching a doumentary on Foxtel the other day, they were highly critical of Rumsfeld and his half-arsed application of "shock and awe" tactics and the conclusions they came up with is that thanks to the lessons learnt in Iraq (the hard way), warfare will be going back to basics: massive amounts of tanks, heavy weapons and MEN ON THE FUCKING GROUND instead of the misguided belief that relatively small numbers of special forces, aeroplanes and smart bombs is all you need to win a war.

Genius, no?

amba · Post by **amba** » 09 Nov 2006 11:54 am

Pat wrote:50,000+ deaths too late, perhaps.

Haven't you learnt anything? Only the US deaths count.

2839 deaths too late, perhaps.

Pat · Post by **Pat** » 09 Nov 2006 12:11 pm

Ambrose Burnside wrote:I was watching a doumentary on Foxtel the other day, they were highly critical of Rumsfeld and his half-arsed application of "shock and awe" tactics and the conclusions they came up with is that thanks to the lessons learnt in Iraq (the hard way), warfare will be going back to basics: massive amounts of tanks, heavy weapons and MEN ON THE FUCKING GROUND instead of the misguided belief that relatively small numbers of special forces, aeroplanes and smart bombs is all you need to win a war.

Genius, no?

Indeed. A lot of people are saying the chaos in large part due to the complete absence of law enforcement, which troops could have played some role in.

General Chaos · Post by **General Chaos** » 09 Nov 2006 01:39 pm

When is "Shock and Awe 360" coming to North Korea?

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 09 Nov 2006 04:17 pm

who was that american polly who shot someone on a fishing trip?

mech · Post by **mech** » 09 Nov 2006 04:41 pm

Their vice president, Dick Cheney.

amba · Post by **amba** » 09 Nov 2006 04:56 pm

mech wrote:Their vice president, Dick Cheney.

Who gets the deciding vote if the Senate is tied after the midterms.

Candy Arse · Post by **Candy Arse** » 09 Nov 2006 06:32 pm

amba wrote:
Pat wrote:50,000+ deaths too late, perhaps.
Haven't you learnt anything? Only the US deaths count.

2839 deaths too late, perhaps.

That doesn't seem to include all the people killed on September 11th.

Cletus · Post by **Cletus** » 09 Nov 2006 06:40 pm

Only police,firemen,one african american and two jews were killed on September 11th.

selfish · Post by **selfish** » 09 Nov 2006 06:53 pm

vision · Post by **vision** » 09 Nov 2006 07:57 pm

I *love* have been a part of this vote and getting the fucking republicans outta here.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 09 Nov 2006 08:50 pm

I'm glad Arnie won though

vision · Post by **vision** » 09 Nov 2006 09:11 pm

I voted against him out of spite.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 09 Nov 2006 11:08 pm

vision wrote:I voted against him out of spite.

Boo-urns!

In related news:

The U.S. armed services have requested a $160 billion supplemental appropriation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the remainder of fiscal year 2007

Source

Pat wrote:
Ambrose Burnside wrote:I was watching a doumentary on Foxtel the other day, they were highly critical of Rumsfeld and his half-arsed application of "shock and awe" tactics and the conclusions they came up with is that thanks to the lessons learnt in Iraq (the hard way), warfare will be going back to basics: massive amounts of tanks, heavy weapons and MEN ON THE FUCKING GROUND instead of the misguided belief that relatively small numbers of special forces, aeroplanes and smart bombs is all you need to win a war.

Genius, no?
Indeed. A lot of people are saying the chaos in large part due to the complete absence of law enforcement, which troops could have played some role in.

This is quite shocking:

Mr. Rumsfeld did not decide how many troops would be deployed for the war in Iraq, but he helped pick the generals who did. He never hesitated to push, prod and ask questions to shape their recommendations.

It was Mr. Rumsfeld who complained that the plan for invading and securing Iraq that had been left behind by Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, Tommy Franks’s predecessor at the United States Central Command, called for more troops. As many as 500,000 troops would be sent to secure Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld dismissed it as old thinking, according to retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold.

According to General Franks, Mr. Rumsfeld was the impetus behind one of the most contentious decisions of the war: canceling the deployment of the First Cavalry Division, which was to reinforce the initial invasion force. That left the American military with fewer troops as the insurgency was beginning to develop.

...

Iraq, of course, is just part of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legacy. In terms of his management style, he clearly succeeded in consolidating his authority as defense secretary. More than any of his predecessors, Mr. Rumsfeld influenced the appointment of three- and four-star officers, installing military leaders whom he could count on to carry out his agenda. But senior officers complained that his insistence on loyalty came at a cost: a dearth of senior officers willing to offer independent advice.

Source