Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Rumsfeld says that, despite the grim news in Iraq, we're ready for a whole bunch of other wars if we want to start some   (today.reuters.com) divider line 64
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

806 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Aug 2006 at 2:50 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-28 10:47:24 PM  
only thing is we'll have to raise the enlistment age to 60...
and maybe overlook a few health problems...
 
2006-08-28 10:59:09 PM  
Rummy never has been too good at figuring out the whole "how many troops will we need" dealie.
 
2006-08-28 11:01:19 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend: Rummy never has been too good at figuring out the whole "how many troops will we need" dealie.


Rumsfeld eyes ICBMs in terror war, warns on Nkorea
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060828/3/2p2hq.html

FAIRBANKS, Alaska (Reuters) - U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday warned North Korea may pose a threat as a weapons seller to terrorists and that America would consider taking the nuclear warheads off intercontinental ballistic missiles so they could be used against terrorists.

Rumsfeld, in Alaska to visit a missile defence installation weeks after Pyongyang test-fired a long-range missile believed capable of reaching the United States, said North Korea is testing missiles to show the capabilities to potential buyers.

"They sell anything to anyone," he said.

"They sell our currency that they counterfeit. They're selling illegal drugs. They're selling basic missile technologies. There's not much they have that they wouldn't sell either to another country or possibly to a terrorist network."

In fact, Rumsfeld said North Korea is more a danger as a proliferator than a military force to challenge South Korea.

"I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more one of proliferation than a danger to South Korea," he told reporters.


Oh-YEAH!!!!!!
 
2006-08-28 11:16:54 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: "I think the real threat that North Korea poses in the immediate future is more one of proliferation than a danger to South Korea," he told reporters.

Oh-YEAH!!!!!!




That's actually one of the smarter things he's said in a while. SK is more than capable of holding it's own, and with just a little US help (mainly air power) even capable of rapidly taking the offensive. NK selling missiles and nuclear technologies to nations like Iran is much more disconcerting.
 
2006-08-28 11:46:06 PM  
Haha. Have fun with that, you idiot.
 
2006-08-28 11:46:45 PM  
How about instead, we concentrate all this extra manpower on making the current field trip in Iraq less of a bumfark?
 
2006-08-28 11:49:10 PM  
HumbleGod: How about instead, we concentrate all this extra manpower on making the current field trip in Iraq less of a bumfark?



www.fas.org

Not particularly useful against an insurgency.
 
2006-08-29 12:01:02 AM  
Churchill2004: Not particularly useful against an insurgency.

Try arguing that on Free Republic.
 
2006-08-29 12:01:02 AM  
Retard Rummy is gonna farking kill me by drafting my ass.
 
2006-08-29 12:07:45 AM  
andrew131: Retard Rummy is gonna farking kill me by drafting my ass.


"Retard Rummy" has no power to institute a draft.

HumbleGod: Try arguing that on Free Republic.

Let's not and say we did.

Converted ICBMs could have a very legitimate military purpose, but also a very limited one. Fighting small-arms battles with an 7000-km range, $50,000,000 missile might be just a tad overkill.
 
2006-08-29 12:10:52 AM  
Churchill2004
No, but he can start more shiat and call for more troops to fight the OMFG WAR ON TERROR!
 
2006-08-29 12:13:50 AM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: "They sell anything to anyone," he said.

That's freakin hilarious.

We've proven that we'll sell anything to anyone.
 
2006-08-29 12:14:25 AM  
andrew131: Churchill2004
No, but he can start more shiat and call for more troops to fight the OMFG WAR ON TERROR!




Which isn't going to do anything to you unless you go sign up for it.

Congress will never pass another draft short of a threat of actual invasion of the United States. It's that simple.


Besides, military leaders across the board vehemently oppose any sort of a draft.
 
2006-08-29 12:17:58 AM  
Churchill2004
Our military leaders also told Rummy they needed more troops.

You place too much faith in a government that only 30 years ago sent 60,000 men to die for swamp lands.
 
2006-08-29 12:21:44 AM  
andrew131: Churchill2004
Our military leaders also told Rummy they needed more troops.

You place too much faith in a government that only 30 years ago sent 60,000 men to die for swamp lands.




I don't place any trust in it, I just understand some of the basic truths about how it works. One of those is that it would be political suicide for any congress to reinstate a draft except under the most dire of national emergencies, in large part because of what Vietnam did to this nation.


Oh, and characterizing Vietnam that way is the height of bullshiat.
 
2006-08-29 12:27:04 AM  
Churchill2004: Congress will never pass another draft short of a threat of actual invasion of the United States. It's that simple.

Exactly. Once people's and their children's necks are at risk, people start asking questions about the necessity of any given war. We saw this during Vietnam, the last questionable war during which there was a draft.

Of mention, it was also a war where the arguments against "cut and run" were brought up, but since people's babies were being killed in a jungle for a useless, ridiculously pointless cause, people simply quit putting up with it.

In short, there would never be a draft, except by absolute necessity of war. It would only be then that congressmen would put their own children in danger of being drafted that they would even consider it again.
 
2006-08-29 12:28:42 AM  
Churchill2004
So Vietnam curbed the US from being involved in sensless wars? Tell me what is going on in Iraq then?

Characterizing Vietnam in the way I did was not bullshiat, it is what the war finally become. The politicians didn't give a shiat about who they sent, mainly the Johnson administration. Nixon didn't help out too much either.

The whole "domino theory" was baseless and led to a bloody war that got the US nowhere, dessimated the military, nearly took us to civil war, and all for what? To show how big our dicks are to the Soviets?
 
2006-08-29 12:31:28 AM  
Churchill2004
I should clarify my draft statement. I think the current administration could so poorly screw the pooch in Iraq, Iran and NK that the US military becomes stretched so thin that when a TRUE emergency occurs our deployed troops won't be able to help. Thus, leading congress and the administration to reinstate a draft for some WWIII?
 
2006-08-29 12:32:35 AM  
koder: Exactly. Once people's and their children's necks are at risk, people start asking questions about the necessity of any given war. We saw this during Vietnam, the last questionable war during which there was a draft.

Of mention, it was also a war where the arguments against "cut and run" were brought up, but since people's babies were being killed in a jungle for a useless, ridiculously pointless cause, people simply quit putting up with it.

In short, there would never be a draft, except by absolute necessity of war. It would only be then that congressmen would put their own children in danger of being drafted that they would even consider it again.




Well, I don't like the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, because a legitimate argument can be made that pulling out of Iraq would be a direct threat to the US, while that couldn't be said about Vietnam.

Other than that, I think you have it.
 
2006-08-29 12:37:47 AM  
andrew131: Churchill2004
So Vietnam curbed the US from being involved in sensless wars? Tell me what is going on in Iraq then?

Characterizing Vietnam in the way I did was not bullshiat, it is what the war finally become. The politicians didn't give a shiat about who they sent, mainly the Johnson administration. Nixon didn't help out too much either.

The whole "domino theory" was baseless and led to a bloody war that got the US nowhere, dessimated the military, nearly took us to civil war, and all for what? To show how big our dicks are to the Soviets?



I didn't say anything about senseless wars, I was referring to drafts. I kinda understand what you're saying about a draft in a true emergency, but I doubt it. We're currently in a system where the military is split roughly into three "shifts" for Iraq. If need be we could make one "shift" permanent, and thus instantly free up 2/3 of our current forces "tied up" in Iraq. That, and we could also go a long way towards increasing the size of the military through the normal means.


The domino theory was not baseless, it turned out exactly like people predicted it would. The point is that preventing it wasn't worth it. Nobody sent Americans to die for swampland, either. They sent them to die for a variety of reasons that seemed good at the time, but that turned out to be wrong.
 
2006-08-29 12:38:46 AM  
Churchill2004: Well, I don't like the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam, because a legitimate argument can be made that pulling out of Iraq would be a direct threat to the US, while that couldn't be said about Vietnam.

I disagree. Pulling out of Vietnam, in the eyes of a country paranoid by communists, would have conceivably given a shot in the arm to the communists, thus making us look weak and vulnerable.

Now, just replace the word "communist" with "terrorist" and "Vietnam" with "Iraq" in that last sentence and it still makes sense.
 
2006-08-29 12:40:45 AM  
koder: I disagree. Pulling out of Vietnam, in the eyes of a country paranoid by communists, would have conceivably given a shot in the arm to the communists, thus making us look weak and vulnerable.

Now, just replace the word "communist" with "terrorist" and "Vietnam" with "Iraq" in that last sentence and it still makes sense.




Let me be clearer: the NVA and VietCong weren't going to start blowing up shiat in America if we stopped keeping them busy over there.

I'm not saying I agree with that logic as far as Iraq, but it's certainly a legitmate argument.
 
2006-08-29 12:41:58 AM  
Churchill2004: They sent them to die for a variety of reasons that seemed good at the time, but that turned out to be wrong.

Bingo. Hindsight is 20/20
 
2006-08-29 12:43:24 AM  
Churchill2004: Nobody sent Americans to die for swampland, either. They sent them to die for a variety of reasons that seemed good at the time, but that turned out to be wrong.

They sent them to die because of LBJs lie that our vessel was attacked by the VC in the Gulf of Tonkin. That's it, in a nut.
It was a staged "act of war", a false flag op.
But it gave Johnson the greenlight he needed to escalate our involvement there.
 
2006-08-29 12:47:00 AM  
HowlingFrog: They sent them to die because of LBJs lie that our vessel was attacked by the VC in the Gulf of Tonkin. That's it, in a nut.
It was a staged "act of war", a false flag op.
But it gave Johnson the greenlight he needed to escalate our involvement there.




It wasn't "staged", it was a mistake that nobody cared to look into too closely, and that was subsequently seized upon as a justification, but it wasn't planned ahead of time.

Anyway, why do you think LBJ wanted to escalate involvement in Vietnam? shiats and giggles? the "military-industrial complex" paid him off?

He thought there was a legitimate US interest in Vietnam. He was wrong... but he sincerely believed it.
 
2006-08-29 12:54:26 AM  
Churchill2004: Let me be clearer: the NVA and VietCong weren't going to start blowing up shiat in America if we stopped keeping them busy over there.

True, but the same could be said about their counterparts in Iraq. Why would they bring their butts back over here, piss us off again and provoke us to truly bomb them into oblivion?

It's not emboldening the terrorists, it's simply saying, "We're sick of fighting you, so don't piss us off again, or we'll truly wipe you off the map."

The real reason we're still there is to protect American business interests that have moved in for the 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves that reside under the sands of Iraq. It's the reason we started the war, and it's the reason why it won't end any time soon.

It's also the reason Iran is getting pissy, and we're lovin' every minute of it; because, except for Iran, Saudia Arabia is the only other country that has a higher amount of proven oil reserves in the world, and we're already buddy-buddy with them. The third on the list is Iraq, followed by Kuwait in fourth, and UAE in fifth, and they're all pretty much moot points.
 
2006-08-29 12:58:30 AM  
Churchill2004: Anyway, why do you think LBJ wanted to escalate involvement in Vietnam? shiats and giggles? the "military-industrial complex" paid him off?

You know, I don't know. Never was clear on what the hell we were doing there in the first place, figured it was about containing communist expansion.
Classic cold-war, "commies are taking over teh whirled" thinking.
 
2006-08-29 01:00:18 AM  
How this guy still has a job is baffling. Completely fark up for 6 years with no negative consequences. Wish I could get that gig.
 
2006-08-29 01:00:51 AM  
I would love to stick around and talk with y'all, particularly seeing as this has been a pretty well-thought out discussion for TF, but I really have to hit the sack. G'night.
 
2006-08-29 01:00:58 AM  
2006-08-29 12:21:44 AM Churchill2004 [TotalFark]

andrew131: Churchill2004
Our military leaders also told Rummy they needed more troops.

You place too much faith in a government that only 30 years ago sent 60,000 men to die for swamp lands.
----
Oh, and characterizing Vietnam that way is the height of bullshiat.


Yes oh mighty Churchill2004 there were only 58,000+ Americans and a few thousand more allies and what only a few 100k Vietnamese. You sir are an asshat.
 
2006-08-29 01:02:26 AM  
Churchill2004: this has been a pretty well-thought out discussion for TF

squernt: You sir are an asshat.

Well, there goes that.


I said it was bullshiat to say they were sent to "die for swampland"

Anyway, g'night.
 
2006-08-29 01:07:08 AM  
Churchill2004: I would love to stick around and talk with y'all, particularly seeing as this has been a pretty well-thought out discussion for TF, but I really have to hit the sack. G'night.

Cheers. Have a good one.

... sorry about the guy who called you an asshat and ruined the discussion for the rest of us. He's an asshat :P
 
2006-08-29 01:31:59 AM  
Abagadro: How this guy still has a job is baffling. Completely fark up for 6 years with no negative consequences.

Defense Secretaries have left/been removed from their jobs for less than what Rumsfeld's done and overseen. At this point, Rumsfeld remains in place simply because this administration sees any change in stance or personnel as conveying a sign of weakness.

It's a failed strategy common with both the Israelis and Palestinians--no matter how failed your strategy is, any change could be seen as a weakness, so it's better to stay the course. And we see how well that's worked for the Middle East for all these decades.
 
2006-08-29 01:38:44 AM  
Churchill2004

Anyway, why do you think LBJ wanted to escalate involvement in Vietnam? shiats and giggles? the "military-industrial complex" paid him off?


Hell, our grand military leaders at the time insisted on using tactical nuclear weapons just like they wanted to do in Korea.

Further, the domino theory did not play out like was thought. South Vietnam fell to North Vietnam, even with our involvement. It stopped there, Thailand didn't fall, Malaysia didn't fall, Indonesia didn't fall, and so on and so forth. It ended when the US troops evac'd and US policitians finally were fed up with the lies by LBJ and Nixon.

Vietnam and Iraq post "Mission Accomplished" were and are sensless wars. Iraq has, for all intents and purposes, been militarily conquered. Our military is not a police force, nor should it be used as one. The military is very efficient at conquering and eliminating, but not being the babysitter to fighting factions. Iraq needs a civil war, the Iraqis need to grow balls of their own and decide what they want to fight for together.
 
2006-08-29 02:15:20 AM  
I don't know who "we" refers to, but I'm pretty sure most of the U.S. is sick and tired of the war.
 
2006-08-29 03:15:36 AM  
Conventional warheads on ICBMs? That has "bad idea" written all over it. First of all, nuclear delivery systems aren't made for accuracy- the CEP of an ICBM is 1000 feet? More?

Second, what happens when we launch ten of them at once and trip the Russian early warning system?
 
2006-08-29 03:17:18 AM  
The only people likely to feel threatened by another Rumsfeld invasion are the US troops who would have to bear the brunt of his and the rest of this Administration's ineptitude.
 
2006-08-29 03:26:27 AM  
AMERICA fark YAH
 
2006-08-29 05:28:58 AM  
"They sell anything to anyone," he said.


www.billmon.org
"Hello Mr Hussein, wanna buy some anthrax?"
 
2006-08-29 06:34:10 AM  
Iran/N.Korea to Rummy:

"Oh yeah? You and what army?!"
 
2006-08-29 07:47:16 AM  
That's right - you better listen up Canada and Iceland.
 
2006-08-29 07:55:24 AM  
Actually, the mere fact that Rummy felt compelled to say we're still strong speaks volumes about our weakness.
 
2006-08-29 08:21:38 AM  
Someone get this man into a straightjacket, or better yet handcuffs.
 
2006-08-29 08:56:25 AM  
Rummy's thought process reminds me of the movie Rain Man. When the doctor asks about how much a car costs and he says ... bout a hundred dollars, and then he asks how much a candy bar costs and he says ...bout a hundred dollars.

How many troops do you have?
Bout a million
How many troops do you need to fight a war?
bout eight
 
2006-08-29 08:57:05 AM  
So the Russians will just take our word for it when we tell them the flying ICBMs are not nukes.

Riiiiiight.

Farking morons in charge these days....
 
2006-08-29 09:00:38 AM  
Just think about this one. Bush's plan is now to leave it up to the next administration. The election is in Nov 08. The inauguration is Jan 09. I figure 2 months to get the cabinet and others in place. Another 6 months to get the new team's plan together. If they decide to leave Iraq then add another 6 months to actually pull out. We are there until early 2010 as it stands right now, unless there is a major change in Congress and this farker W is taken out.

2010 at the earliest at how many lives per year, at what cost per year?

And now Rummy wants more wars?
 
2006-08-29 09:04:11 AM  
Seriously, I should move to Canada so I can get this freakin bullseye off my arse!

You can only tell people to eff off but so many times before they finally decide kick you in the nuts.
 
2006-08-29 09:06:09 AM  
"We are capable of dealing with other problems were they to occur,"

Right up there with "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring 'em on".

Somewhere, Ahmedinejad is giggling, the Pahlavis are salivating at the prospect of trying to pull a Chalabi only more successful, and a lot of civilians are shivering in fear of being blown to bits or press-ganged into "civil defence", same result. Oh, and a bunch of generals are trying to tell the civilian leadership around Washington that no, taking on Iran can't be done unless another couple hundred thousand combat-ready troops magically appear along with all necessary hardware, plus extra to deal with the other stuff that could happen following any kind of action against Iran.

I must say, the US is making things way too easy for the anti-war protesters--all we have to do is replace one letter on the signs and the lame-o three-word chants, and they still work. SweartofarkenBran, I'm going to be standing by another boring demo about a year or two from now, holding a microphone getting the same boring interviews, asking "waitasec, weren't we in this very spot five, six years ago saying the same shiat and having about as much success?"

Also: somewhere, Osama or his successor is laughing as the vaunted American army gets bogged down about two or three countries over.
 
2006-08-29 09:07:29 AM  
Mr. Clarence Butterworth

So the Russians will just take our word for it when we tell them the flying ICBMs are not nukes.



I think I read the other day that Rumsfeld has already discussed this idea with the Russian Defense Minister who said: "I do not think this is a good ideaski". As being a "bad idea" seems to be the benchmark for forming policy in this administration, I fully expect them to forge ahead.
 
2006-08-29 09:16:50 AM  
Good God, I would *hope* he'd say something like this!

Here's my reasoning: Whether it's true or not does not mean as much as whether them that wanna do us harm think it is true. Had Rumsfeld come out and said something like "I sure hope we keep the Jamaicans happy, cuz if they invade, we're screwed!" then yeah we get to the point where them that wanna do us harm start thinking we cannot respond as we'd like. The true trouble will come if (when?) Rumsfeld starts believing his own press statements. He's a cabinet officer, therefore a mouthpiece of the current administration, and is supposed to say things like this.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report