Should Rumsfeld resign?

[tydon]

I refer you to the original post

http://forums.rpgforums.net/showpost...4&postcount=38

Here are the relevant passages:






Note the presence of the word "declare" and the absence of the phrase "de facto" or any phrase that can be interpreted as "de facto."

*yawn* Whatever.

Because vietnam was a de factor declaration, as were many other conflicts we were in. The war was declared, just not "officially". This is the same scenario.

Lets say Canada attacked the US tommorow. And we counter-attacked, and fought for a year or so. But, it was never officially declaraed a war, so I guess that it was never a war......... Something does not have to be declared officially to be a war.

Kinda like a cat walks by, no one says its a cat, but guess what, it is still a cat.

You seriously should try actually answering the content of posts rather than a little piece you think you can actually debate.

Oh, and a edit:

He never said it was officially declared, meaning that the de facto declaration is still a declaration.........

[jimmyboy]

Just wondering.

At the moment the investigation is still ongoing. But...Would you support a Rummy resignation if it comes out that he knew about the prisoner abuse for ... say 3 months and failed to stop it, start an investigation, or bring it to his superior (president)?

[Underseer]

Yes, Vietnam was indeed a de facto war. That still has nothing to do with the assertion he made, which was that Saddam declared war on us, which is not true.

You can bring up all the bad analogies you want, but that still doesn't prove the initial assertion.

He never said it was officially declared, meaning that the de facto declaration is still a declaration.........

You're word parsing. He said "declared," then failed to prove his assertion, as have you.

At most he offered an exchange of pot shots that we started under circiumstances of questionable legality. Since the pot shots happened entirely within his borders, that doesn't count as a declaration of war, even under your "de facto" standard.

[tydon]

Was the cat walking by DECLARED OFFICIALLY a cat?

No

Was Vietnam DECLARED OFFICIALLY a war?

No

Did Saddam DECLARE OFFICIALLY a war?

No


They were conditions set by the UN. He attacked the US regardless of those. If Hitler killed ****, but only within his own country, then it is okay?

A de facto declaration is still a declaration. That proves his assertion.

A de facto declaration that a cat is a cat still means the cat is a cat.

I am sick and tired of you trying to twist facts around.

Look up declared in the dictionary. Does it say officially declared by congress as the definition?

[Underseer]

I'm twisting facts? Pot. Kettle. Yadda.

Was the cat walking by DECLARED OFFICIALLY a cat?

Your hypothetical cat has nothing to do with anything.

Was Vietnam DECLARED OFFICIALLY a war?

Bad analogy.

We invaded Vietnam. Saddam did not invade us. We sent over thousands of troops to their country. Saddam sent no troops to our country. We sent our planes into Vietnamese territory and bombed and napalmed pretty much everything we could find. Saddam did not manage to get a single plane over here. We slaughtered an estimated three million Vietnamese, including an awful lot of civilians. How many Americans did Saddam kill between the Gulf Wars?

They were conditions set by the UN. He attacked the US regardless of those.

Go back and read Plum's post. Pay particular attention to the article he linked.

However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.

We attacked them. Within their borders. They shot back.

Yet you assert this is proof that they declared war on us?

Twist, twist, twist.

[Plum]

Plum: I think though, that if the government (atleast our government) tells you something, it is assumed true until proven otherwise. If a cop gives you a ticket for going 20 over, it is assumed that the cop saw you going 20 on his radar gun, unless you can prove that his radar gun was wrong, which can easily be shown in court by tests. This case is very much so larger and complex, but it does relate some. If the government tells you that you owe 500 dollars on property taxes, you assume that the government is correct unless you can prove otherwise through an appraisal or whatnot.

That's an interesting analogy, but I'd still have to disagree. The government, whether of the US or the vast majority of other nations around the world, has been notorious for contorting and fabricating facts throughout history. Their untrustworthiness seems to have a more extensive base than that of cops that pull you over when you're speeding.

When it comes to straightforward issues such as taxation, what does the government have to gain by swindling a few people? That's really all they can get away with, because it's easy to check up on, and therefore eventually someone will notice. However, in circumstances that involve military intelligence, especially in foreign matters, how can the average citizen verify their claims? The masses can be fooled, for the simple reason that most people are only privy to the knowledge that is released to them by the government.

As such, if the government has a solid enough case, the proof will be plentiful. Really, I'm not some old cynic that sits around whining all day in my rocking chair (not yet anyways). I just hesitate to trust a group of people that make a business out of creating imagery and illusion for the populace. We call them politicians.

[Anakha1]

When his "Daddy" happens to be a former head of state, I hardly consider that a trivial offense. You know this Illad. Even you have to admit that its unacceptable for a foreign power to attempt to murder U.S Presidents, even if you don't particularly care for his politics.

*cough*

The U.S. doesn't exactly have a spotless record in the realm assassinations on foreign heads of states, Steve. What makes the U.S. in the right when they do it? I wouldn't traipse down that road. It looks a lot like a Pot. Kettle. Black. realm.

Rumsfeld = Extreme badass. If you think he should resign, then you should resign too.

Dumbest. Post. Ever.

[llad12]

With ed/ops like this from Armytimes.com, it seems clear that Rumsfeld's abrasive style, obsession with control, and imperious manner has not endeared him to many in the military:

Editorial: A failure of leadership at the highest levels


Around the halls of the Pentagon, a term of caustic derision has emerged for the enlisted soldiers at the heart of the furor over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal: the six morons who lost the war.

Indeed, the damage done to the U.S. military and the nation as a whole by the horrifying photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees at the notorious prison is incalculable.

But the folks in the Pentagon are talking about the wrong morons.

There is no excuse for the behavior displayed by soldiers in the now-infamous pictures and an even more damning report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. Every soldier involved should be ashamed.

But while responsibility begins with the six soldiers facing criminal charges, it extends all the way up the chain of command to the highest reaches of the military hierarchy and its civilian leadership.

The entire affair is a failure of leadership from start to finish. From the moment they are captured, prisoners are hooded, shackled and isolated. The message to the troops: Anything goes.

In addition to the scores of prisoners who were humiliated and demeaned, at least 14 have died in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army has ruled at least two of those homicides. This is not the way a free people keeps its captives or wins the hearts and minds of a suspicious world.

How tragically ironic that the American military, which was welcomed to Baghdad by the euphoric Iraqi people a year ago as a liberating force that ended 30 years of tyranny, would today stand guilty of dehumanizing torture in the same Abu Ghraib prison used by Saddam Hussein’s henchmen.

One can only wonder why the prison wasn’t razed in the wake of the invasion as a symbolic stake through the heart of the Baathist regime.

Army commanders in Iraq bear responsibility for running a prison where there was no legal adviser to the commander, and no ultimate responsibility taken for the care and treatment of the prisoners.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also shares in the shame. Myers asked “60 Minutes II” to hold off reporting news of the scandal because it could put U.S. troops at risk. But when the report was aired, a week later, Myers still hadn’t read Taguba’s report, which had been completed in March. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also failed to read the report until after the scandal broke in the media.

By then, of course, it was too late.

Myers, Rumsfeld and their staffs failed to recognize the impact the scandal would have not only in the United States, but around the world.

If their staffs failed to alert Myers and Rumsfeld, shame on them. But shame, too, on the chairman and secretary, who failed to inform even President Bush.

He was left to learn of the explosive scandal from media reports instead of from his own military leaders.

On the battlefield, Myers’ and Rumsfeld’s errors would be called a lack of situational awareness — a failure that amounts to professional negligence.

To date, the Army has moved to court-martial the six soldiers suspected of abusing Iraqi detainees and has reprimanded six others.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who commanded the MP brigade that ran Abu Ghraib, has received a letter of admonishment and also faces possible disciplinary action.

That’s good, but not good enough.

This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential — even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war.

— Military Times editorial, May 17 issue

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2903288.php

[Amra]

Who runs the Armytimes.com site?

I am just wondering why it isn't a .gov site?

Anyway, it's an editorial (which you clearly pointed out).

[ash2ash]

Who runs the Armytimes.com site?

I am just wondering why it isn't a .gov site?

Anyway, it's an editorial (which you clearly pointed out).

It is an independant organization.

On an interesting note, the headquarters is located across from where I used to work. I used to get subway sandwiches there