Donald Rumsfeld is a joke
- Thread starter Xevious
- Start date
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Firebrand']Bush can fire people?[/quote]
If Cheney lets him.
If Cheney lets him.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Xevious']I'm just expressing my opinion. I think Bush should have fired his ass instead of defending him in the press.[/quote]
Bush won't fire him. Bush places loyalty over competance. Look what happened to the people in his administration who expressed opinions that differed from Bush, they were forced out.
Bush won't fire him. Bush places loyalty over competance. Look what happened to the people in his administration who expressed opinions that differed from Bush, they were forced out.
Xevious
CAGiversary!
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Xevious']I'm just expressing my opinion. I think Bush should have fired his ass instead of defending him in the press.[/quote]
Bush won't fire him. Bush places loyalty over competance. Look what happened to the people in his administration who expressed opinions that differed from Bush, they were forced out.[/quote]
You have a point. Colin Powell is arguably the smartest guy on his cabinet in the last couple of years and he retired.
Bush won't fire him. Bush places loyalty over competance. Look what happened to the people in his administration who expressed opinions that differed from Bush, they were forced out.[/quote]
You have a point. Colin Powell is arguably the smartest guy on his cabinet in the last couple of years and he retired.
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='Xevious']You have a point. Colin Powell is arguably the smartest guy on his cabinet in the last couple of years and he retired.[/quote]
You forgot the quotation marks. Powell didn't retire. He "retired".[/quote]
I'm not exactly sure where you got this information from, I'm guessing somewhere near your backside, but Powell said when he accepted the post that he was strictly in it for one term.
You forgot the quotation marks. Powell didn't retire. He "retired".[/quote]
I'm not exactly sure where you got this information from, I'm guessing somewhere near your backside, but Powell said when he accepted the post that he was strictly in it for one term.
Xevious
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='Xevious']I'm just expressing my opinion. I think Bush should have fired his ass instead of defending him in the press.[/quote]
Have you been with the living for the last 4 years, or do you just set your agenda according to the media ?[/quote]
Rumsfeld has the classic hallmarks of incompentence and arrogance. I dont set my agenda to the media. I use my own thinking to determine if a person is truely compentent in their job.
There are good leaders in war and there are bad leaders in war. McClellan is a bad civil war leader where as U.S. Grant is a good leader. You don't see the history books defending McClellan - Thats because he didn't do his job! Just like Rumsfeld.
Have you been with the living for the last 4 years, or do you just set your agenda according to the media ?[/quote]
Rumsfeld has the classic hallmarks of incompentence and arrogance. I dont set my agenda to the media. I use my own thinking to determine if a person is truely compentent in their job.
There are good leaders in war and there are bad leaders in war. McClellan is a bad civil war leader where as U.S. Grant is a good leader. You don't see the history books defending McClellan - Thats because he didn't do his job! Just like Rumsfeld.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Either way, what an idiot.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html[/quote]
And after his last troop questioning scandal? WOW :shock:
[quote name='bmulligan']So, care to explain exactly how Rumsfeld didn't do his job or shall we just assume you are correct because, well, just because ...?[/quote]
Its funny, people always ask that when they feel backed into a corner. Perhaps this is because it's easier to rationalize a situation or 2 of incompetence than a whole career of it?
And no I won't find you specific examples for the exact reason I listed above.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/index.html[/quote]
And after his last troop questioning scandal? WOW :shock:
[quote name='bmulligan']So, care to explain exactly how Rumsfeld didn't do his job or shall we just assume you are correct because, well, just because ...?[/quote]
Its funny, people always ask that when they feel backed into a corner. Perhaps this is because it's easier to rationalize a situation or 2 of incompetence than a whole career of it?
And no I won't find you specific examples for the exact reason I listed above.
[quote name='zionoverfire']
[quote name='bmulligan']So, care to explain exactly how Rumsfeld didn't do his job or shall we just assume you are correct because, well, just because ...?[/quote]
Its funny, people always ask that when they feel backed into a corner. Perhaps this is because it's easier to rationalize a situation or 2 of incompetence than a whole career of it?
And no I won't find you specific examples for the exact reason I listed above.[/quote]
Nice cop-out. You can't back up your opinion so you just claim the "becuase I said so" argument. You're an intellectual giant among ants. You should put that vacuous space between your ears to some better use and perhaps try to formulate an opinion instead of forfeiting one.
[quote name='bmulligan']So, care to explain exactly how Rumsfeld didn't do his job or shall we just assume you are correct because, well, just because ...?[/quote]
Its funny, people always ask that when they feel backed into a corner. Perhaps this is because it's easier to rationalize a situation or 2 of incompetence than a whole career of it?
And no I won't find you specific examples for the exact reason I listed above.[/quote]
Nice cop-out. You can't back up your opinion so you just claim the "becuase I said so" argument. You're an intellectual giant among ants. You should put that vacuous space between your ears to some better use and perhaps try to formulate an opinion instead of forfeiting one.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan']So, care to explain exactly how Rumsfeld didn't do his job or shall we just assume you are correct because, well, just because ...?[/quote]
Well, it's pretty easy to see how Rumsfeld didn't do his job. He sent an under-manned and under-armored force into Iraq to prove he could take it on the cheap, and then had no plan to secure Iraq once we were in control. Also, for over a year, the men over there had been compaining about not enough armor, yet Rumsfeld didn't bother asking the companies making the armor to step up production.
Well, it's pretty easy to see how Rumsfeld didn't do his job. He sent an under-manned and under-armored force into Iraq to prove he could take it on the cheap, and then had no plan to secure Iraq once we were in control. Also, for over a year, the men over there had been compaining about not enough armor, yet Rumsfeld didn't bother asking the companies making the armor to step up production.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='zionoverfire']
[quote name='bmulligan']So, care to explain exactly how Rumsfeld didn't do his job or shall we just assume you are correct because, well, just because ...?[/quote]
Its funny, people always ask that when they feel backed into a corner. Perhaps this is because it's easier to rationalize a situation or 2 of incompetence than a whole career of it?
And no I won't find you specific examples for the exact reason I listed above.[/quote]
Nice cop-out. You can't back up your opinion so you just claim the "becuase I said so" argument. You're an intellectual giant among ants. You should put that vacuous space between your ears to some better use and perhaps try to formulate an opinion instead of forfeiting one.[/quote]
And now the slander commences!
Really if I actually go waste the time to find a few points against him your just going to play them off as tiny mistakes and if I find a ton of problems your simply going to attack the weakest to draw attention from the real argument.
So why don't we focus on the war in Iraq? Rumsfeld has done quite an excellent job there. Everyday it gets a little worse and I'd say a large part of that is due to sending in anunder-manned force to do a job they were not designed to do. The vast majority of these soldiers were trained for conventional warfare, not for policing and antiterrorist duty.
You would think by now a change in tactics would be in order but no the plan is still lets get an Iraq government elected and that would solve everything. Meanwhile local Iraqi leaders are being assassinated daily and another US base just got hit.
Ironically had we simply put another dictator in power instead of declaring democracy for the people we’d be in a lot better shape. In fact that’s the type of leader that will probably be in power when we leave Iraq, that is if its still one country. :
[quote name='bmulligan']So, care to explain exactly how Rumsfeld didn't do his job or shall we just assume you are correct because, well, just because ...?[/quote]
Its funny, people always ask that when they feel backed into a corner. Perhaps this is because it's easier to rationalize a situation or 2 of incompetence than a whole career of it?
And no I won't find you specific examples for the exact reason I listed above.[/quote]
Nice cop-out. You can't back up your opinion so you just claim the "becuase I said so" argument. You're an intellectual giant among ants. You should put that vacuous space between your ears to some better use and perhaps try to formulate an opinion instead of forfeiting one.[/quote]
And now the slander commences!
Really if I actually go waste the time to find a few points against him your just going to play them off as tiny mistakes and if I find a ton of problems your simply going to attack the weakest to draw attention from the real argument.
So why don't we focus on the war in Iraq? Rumsfeld has done quite an excellent job there. Everyday it gets a little worse and I'd say a large part of that is due to sending in anunder-manned force to do a job they were not designed to do. The vast majority of these soldiers were trained for conventional warfare, not for policing and antiterrorist duty.
You would think by now a change in tactics would be in order but no the plan is still lets get an Iraq government elected and that would solve everything. Meanwhile local Iraqi leaders are being assassinated daily and another US base just got hit.
Ironically had we simply put another dictator in power instead of declaring democracy for the people we’d be in a lot better shape. In fact that’s the type of leader that will probably be in power when we leave Iraq, that is if its still one country. :
[quote name='zionoverfire']And now the slander commences!
Really if I actually go waste the time to find a few points against him your just going to play them off as tiny mistakes and if I find a ton of problems your simply going to attack the weakest to draw attention from the real argument. [/quote]
So get with the real argument instead of copping out.
Sorry, you can't blame me for this one, you started it with your backed into a corner commentary and aloofness. I was simply asking the OP and others to try to compose a coherent thought instead of an pointless emotional rambling such as "rumsfeld's a dummy and I don't have to answer becuase, well, he just is." I know you can do better than that.
well, you're right, that would be the easy way out. Let another dictator take control of Iraq and have it become as bad as every dictatorship muslim nation in the area surrounding it. Let's just leave well enough alone and do things the easy way for once. You've given me a whole new outlook on human rights.
Change tactics? You mean like stop killing the small minority of terrorists who murder innocent Iraqi citizens ? Leave the country and let them terrorize their own people again, only under a different leader? No one believes that the first elected representatives in Iraq will solve everything, but it's a good start on the road to self-rule. Has representative republic government solved all our problems in the last 200 years?
A vast majority of the Iraqi people want to choose their own government as shown by the plethora of candidates vying for political office. Then there are those who wish to seize power by threat of violence and intimidation because they have no popular backing by any plurality. Which should we alow to occur, rule by representation or by force ?
Really if I actually go waste the time to find a few points against him your just going to play them off as tiny mistakes and if I find a ton of problems your simply going to attack the weakest to draw attention from the real argument. [/quote]
So get with the real argument instead of copping out.
Sorry, you can't blame me for this one, you started it with your backed into a corner commentary and aloofness. I was simply asking the OP and others to try to compose a coherent thought instead of an pointless emotional rambling such as "rumsfeld's a dummy and I don't have to answer becuase, well, he just is." I know you can do better than that.
well, you're right, that would be the easy way out. Let another dictator take control of Iraq and have it become as bad as every dictatorship muslim nation in the area surrounding it. Let's just leave well enough alone and do things the easy way for once. You've given me a whole new outlook on human rights.
Change tactics? You mean like stop killing the small minority of terrorists who murder innocent Iraqi citizens ? Leave the country and let them terrorize their own people again, only under a different leader? No one believes that the first elected representatives in Iraq will solve everything, but it's a good start on the road to self-rule. Has representative republic government solved all our problems in the last 200 years?
A vast majority of the Iraqi people want to choose their own government as shown by the plethora of candidates vying for political office. Then there are those who wish to seize power by threat of violence and intimidation because they have no popular backing by any plurality. Which should we alow to occur, rule by representation or by force ?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
If Our Leader, Rummy, and co. really wanted to stop the next Holocaust, we'd be in Darfur. So let's cut the BS about promoting democracy around the world. For an educated observer, it is obvious that the Bush administration has interests in Iraq beyond giving the people their basic human rights.
bread's done