Should Rumsfeld resign?

[Underseer]

I don't think he will resign and I don't think he ought to. He is the secretary of defense, not director of the CIA. The person's responsible for ordering and instigating it are hired "contractors", mercs if you will.

While there are some soldiers who took part in the abuses I don't think Secretary Rumsfeld ought to be left holding the bag, although he's already accepted full responsibility for it. I think they ought to try, convict and imprison those found to be taking part. Remove those in command over the soldiers and make very clear in english and arabic what the rules are for handling prisoners and their rights.

You don't shoot a horse because it's got an infected wound. You treat it, bandage it and move on.

With all due respect, Sarge, the CIA had nothing to do with the interrogations in Abu Ghraib prison. That was M.I. working with a private contracting firm.

Secondly, you're assuming Abu Ghraib is the cause of America's loss of prestige. Abu Ghraib is only part of the reason America has little or no credibility left in the world.

Lastly, the administration is very much to blame for the Abu Ghraib sitution, although not directly. I'm sure it wasn't by design, but they created the conditions that not only made these atrocities possible, but probable. In other situations, they fought tooth and nail to keep the Geneva conventions from applying to other prisoners. What message do you think that sent to people running military prisons? The administration fought tooth and nail to avoid any sort of external oversight of what was going on in all of our military run prisons. What message do you think that sent? Add to that mix inexperienced, untrained jailers and overzealous interrogators, and the result was all but inevitable.

[tydon]

[QUOTE=Underseer]Like break lots of treaties.

Like heap ridicule on most of our traditional allies.

Like start an unprovoked war under false pretenses.

Like giving up the pretense of being an unbiased broker of peace in Israel.

Like killing thousands of Iraqi civilians... on false pretenses.

Like refusing to follow Geneva conventions in Gitmo.

Like rounding up Iraqi civilians at random (as many as 60%) without telling them what they're charged with. Without notifying their relatives. Oh yeah, and torturing them.
QUOTE]

The war was not unprovoked, Saddamn only had to allow weapons inspectors in. Although, it was under false pretense. If you think it was unprovoked, this is like a Cop saying show me your hands, and you say I dont have anything in them, and just stand there. Do you think hes going to say, Ohh, I believe you and walk away?

Geneva Conventions technically do not apply to areas that did not sign them, so that is an iffy issue...

Ya, he had nothing to do with the torturing of prisoners...

Ya, he has done things wrong, but nothing as far out as you make it seem.

[Underseer]

The war was not unprovoked, Saddamn only had to allow weapons inspectors in. Although, it was under false pretense. If you think it was unprovoked, this is like a Cop saying show me your hands, and you say I dont have anything in them, and just stand there. Do you think hes going to say, Ohh, I believe you and walk away?

Geneva Conventions technically do not apply to areas that did not sign them, so that is an iffy issue...

Ya, he had nothing to do with the torturing of prisoners...

Ya, he has done things wrong, but nothing as far out as you make it seem.

Fine. Continue believing your right-wing rhetoric about justification for the war.

The rest of the world isn't as gullible as conservatives, and they're the one we lost credibility with. The Bush administration has little by little destroyed our credibility, our prestige, and our ability to make arguments from moral high ground. "...nothing as far out as you make it seem"? If anything, I underemphasized the damage Bush has done to our credibility.

[tydon]

Okay, go and believe that Iraq allowed all the weapons inspectors in and allowed them to view the locations..........even when they admit they were not allowed to..........

Yup.........even our allies admit that the weapons inspectors were not allowed to search everywhere.

This truly is all dependent on the handover date. If we give them complete control on that date, then the world will believe that we did it from a higher moral ground. If we dont, then they will just see us as hypocritical....

[Plum]

Blix and El Baradei, the heads of the inspection agencies, said they were making pretty good progress by the end, Tydon. Really, I can't think of a way you can say the US government was provoked to order an attack Iraq. It would essentially mean that Iraq had taken the first steps of aggression, which surely wasn't the case.

On the revised 'handover' date, I think this new plan (with the interim government and Jan 2005 date) is far more appropriate that the original one for June 30.

[llad12]

Okay, go and believe that Iraq allowed all the weapons inspectors in and allowed them to view the locations..........even when they admit they were not allowed to..........

Yup.........even our allies admit that the weapons inspectors were not allowed to search everywhere.

Hmm ...

Hans Blix report to the UN

January 27,2003 ...
I shall deal first with cooperation on process. In this regard, it has regard to the procedures, mechanism, infrastructure, and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect, and with one exception, it has been prompt.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ix_report.html

This truly is all dependent on the handover date. If we give them complete control on that date, then the world will believe that we did it from a higher moral ground. If we dont, then they will just see us as hypocritical....

C'mon Tydon, do you truly believe that the US is going to give complete control to the Iraqis on June 30th?

[maccool]

do you truly believe that the US is going to give complete control to the Iraqis on June 30th?

I do. 30 June 2120.

[tydon]

Hmm ...


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...ix_report.html




C'mon Tydon, do you truly believe that the US is going to give complete control to the Iraqis on June 30th?

You cannot try to predict what will occur. Who knows. You cannot argue conclusively one way or the other because nothing is fact, and nothing is in concrete.



Oh, and from your own site:

"For nearly three years, Iraq refused to accept any inspections by UNMOVIC"

Later on:

"we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request"
About the use of aircraft to search

Also:

'Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that will eliminate the questions or reduce their number"

"To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual would only speak at Iraq's Monitoring Directorate or at any rate, in the presence of an Iraq official"



And of course, the Inspectors asked for more time, who would not try to keep their job longer?

[Deceit]

Lol, he is the scapegoat for Bush until we get more info. So since Bush is his boss he should resign... Then again he is the "Hitler of Democracy."

[Johnny]

Why should he resign, what did he do?


Its not like he went down there with with handcuffs and a whip yelling "come on here little Iraqis we is gonna have ourselfs some good ol american fun yeehaw."