billvon 3,132 #126 December 13, 2006 >I think he's out job hunting at this moment for a reason . . . Interestingly, now that he has no one to answer to, he is starting to make more sense. From a recent interview: -------------------- Interviewer: With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq? Rumsfeld: I don't think I would have called it the "war on terror." I don't mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word "war" conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a war on terror. Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and, [through] a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So "war on terror" is a problem for me. . . . . People who argue for more troops are often thinking World War II and the Weinberger doctrine, which is valid in a conflict between armies, navies and air forces. The problem with it, in the context of a struggle against extremists, is that the greater your presence, the more it plays into extremist lies that you're there to take their oil, to occupy their nation, stay and not leave; that you're against Islam, as opposed to being against violent extremists. People who argue for more, more, more, as I would in a conventional conflict, fail to recognize that it can have exactly the opposite effect. It can increase recruiting for extremists. It can increase financing for extremists. It can make more persuasive the lies of the extremists that we are there for the oil and water and want to take over their country. . . . There are two centers of gravity. One is in Iraq and the region; the other is here. The more troops you have, the greater the risk that you will be seen as an occupier and that you will feed an insurgency. The more troops you have--particularly American troops, who are so darn good at what they do--the more they will do things and the more dependent the Iraqis will become, and the less independent they will become. ... At some point, you've got to take your hand off the bicycle seat. You've got the bicycle going down the street. You're pushing and holding it up, and you go from four fingers, to three fingers, to two and you know if you let go they might fall. You also know If you don't let go, you'll end up with a 40-year-old who can't ride a bike. ----------------------- So the question is - is he really suddenly getting a bit more wise, or was he toeing the adminstration line for all this time? If it's the former, good for him; too bad it didn't happen sooner. If it's the latter, then it doesn't matter who we have as SecDef - we will continue to make the same mistakes over and over. (At least for two more years.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #127 December 13, 2006 QuoteEverybody is losing in this war.Quote You are right in some respect, everyone is losing something in this war, for us in the US we are losing countless great men and women. As for the war itself, even if the media doesn't portray it, we are inching closer to victory, nobody ever said the war would go quickly. I would say the war in Iraq will last another 3 years, and that the GWOT will be another 15 or more. But what do I know?...not much Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites udder 0 #128 December 13, 2006 Yes, practices have changed, because the US doesn't have the courage of conviction to stand behind it's claims of self defense. Real self defense is total war. Bomb their power stations, railways, industrial areas and airports , destroy their military to the last man and get out. It would be significantly cheaper to do that multiple times than maintain the current gang fuck. It's not a war. It's civil mayhem."In one way or the other, I'm a bad brother. Word to the motherf**ker." Eazy-E Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #129 December 13, 2006 QuoteYes, practices have changed, because the US doesn't have the courage of conviction to stand behind it's claims of self defense. Real self defense is total war. Bomb their power stations, railways, industrial areas and airports , destroy their military to the last man and get out. It would be significantly cheaper to do that multiple times than maintain the current gang fuck. It's not a war. It's civil mayhem. So we should destroy the entire country to save the Iraqis? The self defense mission is so 2003. Don't forget, we invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. Iraq posed no threat to America, despite all the propaganda. Maybe their leader wasn't such a great guy, but then, neither is ours. Might I suggest picking up a copy of The Art Of War so you might understand why your proposal is a very bad idea.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #130 December 13, 2006 QuoteMight I suggest picking up a copy of The Art Of War so you might understand why your proposal is a very bad idea. At this point in time I think SunTzu would advocate that we know the enemy and the only way to win is to kill them all and let GOD sort them out. If the people of the Middle East will not allow other religions and peoples of the world to live with them in peace... then perhaps that becomes the ONLY option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #131 December 13, 2006 >At this point in time I think SunTzu would advocate that we know >the enemy and the only way to win is to kill them all and let GOD >sort them out. Perhaps. But remember what we (the world) did to the last country who exterminated six million people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #132 December 13, 2006 Well Bill, that is only 6 million, a decent sized strike would kill 20 times that. Think about what could actually happen if things got out of control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #133 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd before you go and try and pull a tought guy routine look a little closer at what I was calling out, like I said if you want us out of Iraq, voice your opinion, but if someone is going to knock a soldier saying they aren't tough enough to handle the war, they should grab their sack and say it to a soldiers face, they are still more than welcome to voice their opinion I just think people who say such things should experience first hand how well soldiers can really fight. I just had to go back to this. There are SEVERAL right wing posters on here who I would LOVE to meet in person.... who I would say the same thing to them in person face to face. I would love to see if they have the cajones to say the same things to me in person that they have said from behind their keyboards. My boogie schedule is fairly well known. Hell I even went to one of their home DZ's all the way across the country a couple times for events being held there. I made no secret I was going there.... but I guess they really dont jump all that often. See? Does this mean I'm supposed to read any post you make, and track down your everymove? Perhaps, is that I have been away now and then? This year alone, I only spent 3.5 months at home, and I prefer spending time with my loved ones. If I have no time to play in the sky, well, too bad. Didn't you take a bunch of years off from jumping? don't you have other activities that may interest you? Some of us have lives and many interests outside skydiving. And about that comment of Gitmo, you missed the word "IF". You crack me up Amazon, you really do."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #134 December 14, 2006 As usual, you are simply either out of touch, or out of a concise knowledge of what an US service member needs to do, as well as what implies in their training. We owe loyalty to the US, the constitution, the president, and those appointed over each one of us. Just signing off the paper your are subject to UCMJ if you are disrespectfull to any officer, etc. But I would expect that this will be hard for you to understand, as it seems that instead of debating this issue, you always seem to bring my personal (and disinformed) background into the plate. But well, I leave it up to your very unreliable facts speak for themselves."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Samurai136 0 #135 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteYes, practices have changed, because the US doesn't have the courage of conviction to stand behind it's claims of self defense. Real self defense is total war. Bomb their power stations, railways, industrial areas and airports , destroy their military to the last man and get out. It would be significantly cheaper to do that multiple times than maintain the current gang fuck. It's not a war. It's civil mayhem. So we should destroy the entire country to save the Iraqis? The self defense mission is so 2003. Don't forget, we invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. Iraq posed no threat to America, despite all the propaganda. Maybe their leader wasn't such a great guy, but then, neither is ours. Might I suggest picking up a copy of The Art Of War so you might understand why your proposal is a very bad idea. Yeah.... I can't possibly imagine what Sun Tzu would say... Quote1. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations. 2. The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting. 3. Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. 4. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. 5. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious. 6. Opportunities multiply as they are seized. 7. The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. 8. There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare. 9. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. 10. Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. 11. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. "Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,132 #136 December 14, 2006 > As usual, you are simply either out of touch . . . Your second warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #137 December 14, 2006 The parts I was referring to (and I don't have my copy handy) were about how the indigenous population must be treated if an army expects their respect or assistance after the battles have been fought.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
udder 0 #128 December 13, 2006 Yes, practices have changed, because the US doesn't have the courage of conviction to stand behind it's claims of self defense. Real self defense is total war. Bomb their power stations, railways, industrial areas and airports , destroy their military to the last man and get out. It would be significantly cheaper to do that multiple times than maintain the current gang fuck. It's not a war. It's civil mayhem."In one way or the other, I'm a bad brother. Word to the motherf**ker." Eazy-E Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #129 December 13, 2006 QuoteYes, practices have changed, because the US doesn't have the courage of conviction to stand behind it's claims of self defense. Real self defense is total war. Bomb their power stations, railways, industrial areas and airports , destroy their military to the last man and get out. It would be significantly cheaper to do that multiple times than maintain the current gang fuck. It's not a war. It's civil mayhem. So we should destroy the entire country to save the Iraqis? The self defense mission is so 2003. Don't forget, we invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. Iraq posed no threat to America, despite all the propaganda. Maybe their leader wasn't such a great guy, but then, neither is ours. Might I suggest picking up a copy of The Art Of War so you might understand why your proposal is a very bad idea.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #130 December 13, 2006 QuoteMight I suggest picking up a copy of The Art Of War so you might understand why your proposal is a very bad idea. At this point in time I think SunTzu would advocate that we know the enemy and the only way to win is to kill them all and let GOD sort them out. If the people of the Middle East will not allow other religions and peoples of the world to live with them in peace... then perhaps that becomes the ONLY option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #131 December 13, 2006 >At this point in time I think SunTzu would advocate that we know >the enemy and the only way to win is to kill them all and let GOD >sort them out. Perhaps. But remember what we (the world) did to the last country who exterminated six million people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #132 December 13, 2006 Well Bill, that is only 6 million, a decent sized strike would kill 20 times that. Think about what could actually happen if things got out of control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #133 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteAnd before you go and try and pull a tought guy routine look a little closer at what I was calling out, like I said if you want us out of Iraq, voice your opinion, but if someone is going to knock a soldier saying they aren't tough enough to handle the war, they should grab their sack and say it to a soldiers face, they are still more than welcome to voice their opinion I just think people who say such things should experience first hand how well soldiers can really fight. I just had to go back to this. There are SEVERAL right wing posters on here who I would LOVE to meet in person.... who I would say the same thing to them in person face to face. I would love to see if they have the cajones to say the same things to me in person that they have said from behind their keyboards. My boogie schedule is fairly well known. Hell I even went to one of their home DZ's all the way across the country a couple times for events being held there. I made no secret I was going there.... but I guess they really dont jump all that often. See? Does this mean I'm supposed to read any post you make, and track down your everymove? Perhaps, is that I have been away now and then? This year alone, I only spent 3.5 months at home, and I prefer spending time with my loved ones. If I have no time to play in the sky, well, too bad. Didn't you take a bunch of years off from jumping? don't you have other activities that may interest you? Some of us have lives and many interests outside skydiving. And about that comment of Gitmo, you missed the word "IF". You crack me up Amazon, you really do."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #134 December 14, 2006 As usual, you are simply either out of touch, or out of a concise knowledge of what an US service member needs to do, as well as what implies in their training. We owe loyalty to the US, the constitution, the president, and those appointed over each one of us. Just signing off the paper your are subject to UCMJ if you are disrespectfull to any officer, etc. But I would expect that this will be hard for you to understand, as it seems that instead of debating this issue, you always seem to bring my personal (and disinformed) background into the plate. But well, I leave it up to your very unreliable facts speak for themselves."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #135 December 14, 2006 QuoteQuoteYes, practices have changed, because the US doesn't have the courage of conviction to stand behind it's claims of self defense. Real self defense is total war. Bomb their power stations, railways, industrial areas and airports , destroy their military to the last man and get out. It would be significantly cheaper to do that multiple times than maintain the current gang fuck. It's not a war. It's civil mayhem. So we should destroy the entire country to save the Iraqis? The self defense mission is so 2003. Don't forget, we invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. Iraq posed no threat to America, despite all the propaganda. Maybe their leader wasn't such a great guy, but then, neither is ours. Might I suggest picking up a copy of The Art Of War so you might understand why your proposal is a very bad idea. Yeah.... I can't possibly imagine what Sun Tzu would say... Quote1. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations. 2. The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without fighting. 3. Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. 4. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. 5. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious. 6. Opportunities multiply as they are seized. 7. The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. 8. There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare. 9. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. 10. Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. 11. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. "Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #136 December 14, 2006 > As usual, you are simply either out of touch . . . Your second warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #137 December 14, 2006 The parts I was referring to (and I don't have my copy handy) were about how the indigenous population must be treated if an army expects their respect or assistance after the battles have been fought.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
