Rumsfeld Hammers The UN and NATO

[Jedi Knight]

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the UN and NATO to quit being cowards and disarm Iraq or the US is going in with both barrels blazing.

The sooner the bombs start dropping on Iraq, the safer the United States will be. When our AirForce takes them sorry fascists out, it will be another 20 years before any other country messes with us again.

Peace through superior firepower, not leftist appeasement.

JK

 

[Goshawk]

Har. The week's best Unintentional Humor.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/08/sprj.irq.rumsfeld.europe/index.html

"Let me be clear, no one wants war..."

No one except for Donald Rumsfeld, apparently.

 

[crackmonkey]

I have to say Rumsfeld made me proud. His line about 'old Europe and new Europe' was right on, and his berating the French and Germans for balking at NATO support for Turkey in the event of war was perfect.

 

[RandFan]

Har. The week's best Unintentional Humor.

"Let me be clear, no one wants war..."--Rumsfeld

No one except for Donald Rumsfeld, apparently.

To be funny there must be an element of truth. It could be argued that Rumsfeld is commited to war. But how could it be argued that he "wants" war? I'm not sure why this is funny even out of context?

In context there is simply no way that it could possibly construed as funny.

"War is never a first or an easy choice, but the risks of war have to be balanced against the risks of doing nothing, while Iraq pursues the tools of mass destruction."

Could you explain why his remarks are funny, in or out of context?

Edited to add, I do think taken out of context it could be funny. I can see an element of truth if taken out of context. Not all that funny though.

 

[Starshark]

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the UN and NATO to quit being cowards and disarm Iraq or the US is going in with both barrels blazing.

The sooner the bombs start dropping on Iraq, the safer the United States will be. When our AirForce takes them sorry fascists out, it will be another 20 years before any other country messes with us again.

Peace through superior firepower, not leftist appeasement.

JK

Maybe it's time you gave this place a visit. If nothing else, it will give the rest of us a break from the hot air for a bit.

 

[RandFan]

I think Rumsfeld has done a great job. His points are dead on.

"The resolution which passed unanimously did not say the next-to-final opportunity, it said the final opportunity. Those who voted for it knew what it said."

Powell is right, the UN is in danger of being relevant if it is not already. It reminds me of the parent unable to control his or her own child.

Don't do that!

I said don't do that!

Look you do that again and something bad will happen!

Look this is the last time, stop it!

I'm not going to tell you again mister!

Ok, ok, I'm warning you!

Stop it!

I said stop it!

Ok NEXT time something really bad will happen! I don't know what it is but it will be really, really bad.

Oh please, shut the hell up and spank the kid.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

November 13, 2002:

This is my final thread topic. It didn't dawn on me that I was debating in the midst of a hate group until recently when sovietesque "mental illness" labels were used against people who did not adhere to the atheist extremism point of view on numerous subjects.

 

[Reginald]

You have to admire, in a very strange way....

Just how Sadam's plan has worked out.

German Foreign minister raising his voice to a US Def Sec.

Half of Europe against the other half.

The UN exposed for what it really is, impotent.

NATO obligations (Re Turkey) being procrastinated over.

People now want the weapons found, not proof they were destroyed (As laid out in 1441).

The US gradually being made to seem more and more the bad guy in this (Even if you thought they already were, you can't doubt that its getting stronger).

He just does his thing and sits and watches while the rest of the world beat each other up verbally about if its right to beat him up.


I bet that guy is laughing his Bl@@dy head off.

 

[RandFan]

Powell is right, the UN is in danger of being relevant if it is not already. It reminds me of the parent unable to control his or her own child.

You know I meant to say irrelevant but if the UN actually followed through it would be in danger of being relevant.

 

[Attrayant]

The sooner the bombs start dropping on Iraq, the safer the United States will be. When our AirForce takes them sorry fascists out, it will be another 20 years before any other country messes with us again.

Oh yeah.

 

[Goshawk]

Why Donald Rumsfeld is funny.

RandFan: I submit to you that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't reeeeeally want to have a war the way Martha Stewart doesn't reeeeeally want to have a Luau Party. All that organizing, all that work, all that mess...Nobody in their right mind would want to have a Luau Party. But there she is, snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog, ordering hula skirts...

Please don't try to tell me that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't really want a war. Somebody who really doesn't want to have a war says so, at every opportunity. "I don't really want to have a war." This is not the message Donald Rumsfeld has been giving the world. He's been beating the drums for a pre-emptive strike for months now ("We have to get Saddam before he gets us!"), setting unrealistic terms for Iraq ("They can depose him, or he can voluntarily go into exile", and, "The fact that the inspectors haven't found anything means he's hiding something", and, "He hasn't been cooperative enough anyway, so we have the right to attack him...").

Actions speak louder than words, too.

He really, really wants to have that Luau Party. He's got all kinds of really, really good reasons why we ought to have a Luau Party. He's been saying so, out loud, in public, for months now, and lately he's been snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog and the telephone, ordering troops and making arrangements...

April 27, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/27/us.iraq/index.html

Report: U.S. eyes Iraq invasion in 2003
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration is plotting a potential major air campaign and ground invasion early next year to topple the Iraqi government of President Saddam Hussein, the New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

The use of 70,000 to 250,000 troops is being considered, the Times said.

< snip >

For years, official U.S. policy has been to work for a "regime change" in Iraq. Since the September 11 strikes, which exposed America's vulnerability to attack, the Bush administration has repeatedly said it has to act to prevent the possibility of Baghdad using weapons of mass destruction. The statements have caused unease among many European and Arab nations.

< snip >

According to the Times, there are conflicting views of the diplomatic impact, with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their senior aides feeling that "Arab leaders would publicly protest but secretly celebrate Mr. Hussein's downfall."

May 6, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/06/time.out/index.html

Hawks like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Defense Policy Board chief Richard Perle strongly believe that after years of American sanctions and periodic air assaults, the Iraqi leader is weaker than most people believe. Rumsfeld has been so determined to find a rationale for an attack that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to the terror attacks of Sept. 11. The intelligence agency repeatedly came back empty-handed. The best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack--a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic--was discredited last week.

August 13, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/13/iraq.pentagon/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday that even if U.N. weapons inspectors were allowed to return to Iraq, it would be highly improbable that they would be able to conduct a thorough examination to determine the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

< snip >

"It is a big country. They've had years to do what they want to do. They have done a great deal of underground tunneling. They have things that are mobile. It makes it very difficult for inspectors under the best of circumstances to find things," said Rumsfeld, who, along with others in the Bush administration, is looking into the feasibility of an attack on Iraq to remove President Saddam Hussein from power.

August 22, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq/index.html

One of the top military personnel not present was Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. Central Command who would lead any military action against Iraq.

Franks was in Kazakhstan, where he told reporters he was drawing up contingency plans for Iraq to give Bush "credible options."

< snip >

Rumsfeld said that within the last 30 days, he has asked at least three U.S. combat commanders, including Franks, to come up with "various types of contingency plans in totally different parts of the world."

August 27, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/27/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

CAMP PENDLETON, California (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday the decision on whether to attack Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will be based on leadership, not consensus, despite growing public anxiety about the prospect of war.

"It's less important to have unanimity than it is to be making the right decisions and doing the right thing, even though at the outset it may seem lonesome," Rumsfeld told Marines here.
The defense secretary said U.S. leaders and those in other countries are engaged in an important and serious discussion on Iraq, weighing the advantages of acting against Saddam versus the "advantages of not acting."

He said Bush has yet to reach a decision on the matter, but he is confident the president "will find his way to the right decision."

When that decision is made, the defense secretary said, "We'll find that in a relatively short period of time, there will be support across broad areas for doing the right thing."

The comments came a day after the White House said it doesn't need congressional approval to launch an attack and Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States cannot wait until Iraq obtains nuclear weapons before taking action.

September 8, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/index.html

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted that the United States can't underestimate Iraq's weapons activities.

"After the Iraq war, Desert Storm, after they invaded Kuwait ... we went in and were able to find out that they were within six months to a year away from developing a nuclear weapon," Rumsfeld told CBS' "Face the Nation."

He said intelligence estimates at the time indicated Iraq was at least two, and as many as six, years away from possessing nuclear capabilities.

"Until you're down on the ground, you can't know precisely," Rumsfeld said. "The intelligence we have is clearly sufficient for the president to say that he believes the world has to recognize the Iraqis have repeatedly violated these U.N. resolutions."

September 18, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a House committee Wednesday that President Bush has made no decision on military action against Iraq and said the goal of U.S. policy is not weapons inspections, but the disarmament of Iraq.

Rumsfeld also raised the specter of a September 11-style attack involving nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and told the House Armed Services committee that Iraq under leader Saddam Hussein is a global threat.

Rumsfeld listed reasons why military action would be pre-emptive, including the possibility that Baghdad either possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical or biological devices.

"No other living dictator matches Saddam Hussein's record of waging aggressive war against his neighbors," Rumsfeld said. "pursuing weapons of mass destruction, using them against his own people, launching missiles against his neighbors, brutalizing and torturing his own citizens, harboring terrorist networks, engaging in terrorist acts including the attempted assassination of foreign officials, violating international commitments, lying and hiding his W.M.D. [weapons of mass destruction] programs from inspectors, deceiving and defying the expressed will of the United Nations over and over again."

< snip >

Rumsfeld said victory would best come as part of a military coalition led by the United States.

November 15, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/14/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that," [Rumsfeld] said in an hour-long radio interview for Infinity Broadcasting.

"It won't be a World War III," he added, citing the "vastly more powerful" U.S. forces, compared to 10 years ago during the first Persian Gulf War.

The defense secretary also said that a "decision has not been made that war is necessary" in getting Iraq to comply with the latest U.N. resolution calling on Baghdad to disclose its weapons of mass destruction program and disarm.

"The president has not suggested that that is going to be needed," Rumsfeld said, although President Bush has said many times that military force will be used to make Iraq comply.

"Was the attack then an imminent threat two, three, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat, when was it sufficiently dangerous? Now transport yourself forward ... if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, or use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and some of the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States or on U.S. forces overseas with weapons of mass destruction, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?" Rumsfeld asked.

"Our task, your task ... is to try to connect the dots before something happens. People say, 'Well, where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction"...

November 18, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/11/17/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html

SANTIAGO, Chile (CNN) -- Complaining about Iraq firing once again at U.S. and British planes patrolling the "no-fly" zones, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Sunday warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that he must help U.N. weapons inspectors if he expects to avoid war.

< snip >

The defense secretary told reporters en route to Chile that it will not be good enough for Iraq simply not to thwart U.N. inspectors when they arrive. Iraq needs to help them so it can be seen as fully complying with the U.N. disarmament resolution, he said.

December 12, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/wbr.rumsfeld.qatar/index.html

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- The first stop for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Qatar is signing an agreement that will formally expand U.S. access to the huge Al Udeid air base in this small but strategically important Persian Gulf state. "There is no doubt the agreement will allow us to strengthen our long-term strategic cooperation," Rumsfeld said.

At issue is an air base with a 15,000-foot runway -- the longest in the region. That base will be critical if the United States goes to war against Iraq. On Thursday, the defense secretary made a quick visit to the U.S. military's temporary headquarters at the As Saliyah military base -- also in Qatar.

December 19, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/19/sproject.irq.us.military/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon may begin an aggressive buildup of U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf region in January, depending on decisions made in the next few days, Pentagon officials said.

< snip >

The deployments would roughly double the number of U.S. troops in the region, from 60,000 to more than 100,000, officials said.

December 29, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/28/sproject.irq.troops/index.html

FORT BENNING, Georgia (CNN) -- U.S. Army tank and mechanized infantry units have been told they are going to the Persian Gulf, officials said Saturday.

< snip >

The Navy has ordered two aircraft carriers -- the USS George Washington, which returned home to Norfolk, Virginia, on December 20, and a second carrier to be determined later -- to prepare to sail to the Persian Gulf after the first of the year.

< snip >

Several Marine Corps amphibious ships have received similar prepare-to-deploy orders, and the hospital ship USNS Comfort has received an activation order at its port in Baltimore.

< snip >

And the Air Force has issued tasking orders to elements of several wings, including F-15 fighters and fighter-bombers based in Virginia and North Carolina, B-1 bombers from South Dakota and a Georgia-based search-and-rescue unit.

January 3, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/02/sproject.irq.uss.lincoln/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Navy has extended the tour of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in case it is needed for action against Iraq, Pentagon sources told CNN Thursday.

< snip >

The decision to continue the deployment of the USS Lincoln, along with its battle group of ships, means that as many as four U.S. carriers could be available in case hostilities occur.

Three other carriers are being readied for deployment ahead of schedule -- the USS Theodore Roosevelt on the East Coast and the USS Carl Vinson and USS Nimitz on the West Coast.

January 8, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/07/sproject.irq.us.planners/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senior U.S. military planners will move to Qatar as early as this week to prepare for a possible conflict with Iraq, military officials told CNN Tuesday.

The contingent from the U.S. Central Command will go to Camp As Sayliyah in the Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar to staff the headquarters for a possible conflict. Eventually, about 1,000 U.S. troops will be stationed at that base.

A recent exercise by U.S. troops in Qatar tested their ability to run a simulated war from the command center there.

< snip >

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeated suggestions that Saddam go into exile to avoid a war.

"I still hope that he'll leave. And I hope that the country will be disarmed, and I hope that force will not have to be used. But in the meantime, we'll keep flowing forces," he said.

January 15, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/15/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html

Rumsfeld: Lack of evidence could mean Iraq's hiding something

"The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know that Iraq has designed its programs in a way that they can proceed in an environment of inspections and that they are skilled at denial and deception."

< snip >

At NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, Wednesday, the United States formally asked the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for support in the event of military action against Iraq.

January 19, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/19/sprj.irq.us.iraq/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday that exile for Saddam Hussein and other members of the Iraqi leadership would be a "fair trade" to avoid a military conflict.

"I ... would recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country and their families could be provided haven in some other country," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." "I think that that would be a fair trade to avoid a war."

"I think that the people in his country know what a vicious regime [Saddam] runs. And they may decide to throw him out," he said.

< snip >

Rumsfeld said the question wasn't what the inspectors find in Iraq but rather how well the Iraqi government cooperates.

"The only way the inspectors can find anything is if the Iraqi government cooperates and shows it to them," Rumsfeld told reporters. "Inspectors can't find things. They can only inspect what they've been shown."

And, Rumsfeld said, Iraq has shown little cooperation.

"Thus far, they have filed a false declaration of what they have," he said. "They have refused to file the list of the scientists that they are required to provide so that they can be taken out of the country and talked to in safety with their families and won't be killed by Saddam Hussein, as he did kill his sons-in-law after they came back into the country."

January 23, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/22/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday dismissed French and German insistence that "everything must be done to avoid war" with Iraq, saying most European countries stand with the United States in its campaign to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

"Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem," said Rumsfeld, a former NATO ambassador. "But you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe. They're not with France and Germany on this, they're with the United States."

Germany and France represent "old Europe," and NATO's expansion in recent years means "the center of gravity is shifting to the east," Rumsfeld said.

January 30, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/sprj.irq.jordan/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States is confident that it will be able to fly combat missions over Jordan and base some U.S. troops there in a possible war with Iraq, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The United States would like to base a limited number of Special Operations forces in Jordan that would be able to move quickly into western Iraq to neutralize suspected Scud missile sites and secure airfields and other facilities, sources said.

These officials also said the United States would like to place Patriot missile batteries in eastern Jordan to protect against possible Iraqi Scud missile attacks.

January 31, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/31/sproject.irq.turkey.ap/index.html

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- Turkey's top military and civilian leaders have endorsed basing foreign troops in the country, a move that could open the way for American soldiers to use Turkey as a base for military action against Iraq.

< snip >

The decision by the council comes after intense American pressure for basing rights in the NATO-ally Turkey.

February 6, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/05/iraq.tracker.update/index.html

MORE TROOPS CALLED: The total number of U.S. National Guard and Reserve troops on active duty in preparation for a possible war with Iraq has surpassed 100,000, the Pentagon said Wednesday. The call-up is the largest since the troop buildup that preceded the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

February 6, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/06/iraq.tracker.update/index.html

NEW U.S. DEPLOYMENTS: One of the U.S. Army's key fighting forces, the 101st Airborne Division, received deployment orders Thursday, a spokesman at Fort Campbell, Kentucky said. The spokesman said the troops' destination wasn't immediately clear, but the assumption was they will be sent to the Central Command Region, which includes the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was expected Thursday to sign deployment orders to the Persian Gulf for the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier battle group. Four carriers already are in the region.

February 7, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.rumsfeld.europe/index.html

Asked at the Italian news conference what sense of urgency he carried about the crisis with Iraq, [Rumsfeld] said, "the world feels a sense of momentum" and the "long road" to disarm Iraq over the last 12 years has been a stark failure.

"We've seen enormous efforts by the international community of a diplomatic nature, and they have failed," he said, mentioning economic sanctions, the oil-for-food programme and the no-fly zone patrols.

He said there is great "urgency" in the standoff because Saddam's weaponry becomes "more mature" as time goes on.

"And the risk of their use becomes greater," he said, "whether by that country or to a terrorist network."

"The world faces a serious situation," Rumsfeld said, observing the danger of the "nexus" between Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, terrorist states and terrorist networks. He reminded reporters that Iraq has used chemical weapons on Kurds in Iraq.

< snip >

Rumsfeld argued for the U.S. effort to use force as an option to disarm by saying that if the United States had information that the September 11, 2001, attack would take place, wouldn't the country have had an "obligation to stop it?"

"Instead of an attack with 3,000 people killed, imagine an attack with a biological weapon that kills 30,000 or 300,000 innocent people."

February 8, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/02/08/btsc.gupta/index.html

KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait (CNN) -- Fifteen to 20 kilometers from the Iraq-Kuwaiti border, a large U.S. military buildup has begun. Thousands of young men and women, U.S. Army soldiers, are putting up barracks and hunkering down.

February 9, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/09/sprj.irq.civil.fleet.action/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Responding to the build-up of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, the Department of Defense has activated the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which allows the U.S. military to transport troops and equipment by commercial aircraft, a spokesman for the U.S. Transportation Command said Saturday.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld authorized the Stage One activation Saturday, according to a news release from the Defense Department. Stage One authorization is the lowest activation level, and occurs with "minor regional crises."

Though the activation means 22 U.S. airline companies and their 78 commercial aircraft may now be called upon to move large numbers of troops and cargo for the U.S. military, Navy Capt. Steve Honda said the commander of the Transportation Command, Air Force Gen. John Handy, is only activating 47 passenger aircraft.

So now you see why it's funny to hear Rumsfeld say, "No one wants war"?

It's like when you're at Martha's house, and the Luau Party that she's been planning for weeks is just about to begin, the first cars are pulling into the driveway--and she claps her hand to her forehead and moans, "Oh. My. God. How did I ever get into this? I don't want to have a Luau Party!"

What, is she kidding? She's been planning it for weeks! It's hilarious.

Rummy's hilarious, too. "No one wants war..."

* snicker *

 

[Russ]

I'm not reading all of that.

But come on. Nobody knows how this will all play out. I understand there are risks, but I prefer action to inaction. This problem will not go away by ignoring it.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm not reading all of that.

But come on. Nobody knows how this will all play out. I understand there are risks, but I prefer action to inaction. This problem will not go away by ignoring it.

action like WWI action?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Rumsfeld Hammers The UN and NATO

Maybe it's time you gave this place a visit. If nothing else, it will give the rest of us a break from the hot air for a bit.

He probably drives a giant SUV or pickup truck too!!!

 

[RandFan]

Re: Why Donald Rumsfeld is funny.

I submit to you that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't reeeeeally want to have a war the way Martha Stewart doesn't reeeeeally want to have a Luau Party. All that organizing, all that work, all that mess...Nobody in their right mind would want to have a Luau Party. But there she is, snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog, ordering hula skirts...

I don't have any idea what it is you are trying to say. Does he want to have a war or not.

Please don't try to tell me that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't really want a war.

Donald Rumsfeld doesn't Really want a war.

Somebody who really doesn't want to have a war says so, at every opportunity.

Specious argument.

This is not the message Donald Rumsfeld has been giving the world. He's been beating the drums for a pre-emptive strike for months now

This does not prove that Rumsfeld wants to go to war. This proves that Rumsfeld is giving the presidents message to the nation and is preparing the nation to go to war.

("We have to get Saddam before he gets us!"), setting unrealistic terms for Iraq ("They can depose him, or he can voluntarily go into exile", and, "The fact that the inspectors haven't found anything means he's hiding something", and, "He hasn't been cooperative enough anyway, so we have the right to attack him...").

If Saddam had cooperated then Blix would have said so. If the UN had said that Saddam was fully cooperating then war plans would have been put on hold. The UN would have jumped at the chance to say that Saddam was cooperating.

Actions speak louder than words, too.

They prove intent not desire.

I have been busting my ass working weekends and nights so I can pay my taxes (I'm on contract and don't have any taxes taken out of my check). What do my actions speak of? They speak that I am motivated to pay my taxes. They don't prove my desire to pay my taxes. Trust me I DON'T WANT TO PAY MY TAXES.

My Brother in law just sold his home. He worked really hard painting it and fixing it up so that he would be able to sell it. What do his actions speak of?

Well he lost his job and didn't want to lose his equity. He loved his home, his friends, his children are sad that they are loosing their friends, his children were born there and he loved his back yard and garage. He now has to move into an apartment and he is really pissed. Trust me he DIDN'T WANT TO SELL IT! And you know what, he didn't say he didn't want to sell it at every opportunity. He said something once at a family gathering and then bucked it up and moved on. So yes, I do very much think your argument is specious.

He really, really wants to have that Luau Party. He's got all kinds of really, really good reasons why we ought to have a Luau Party. He's been saying so, out loud, in public, for months now, and lately he's been snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog and the telephone, ordering troops and making arrangements...

Donald Rumsfeld is a decent man. He knows that people will die if there is a war. He understands the ramifications of this war and it bothers him. He wishes that there were another way. However...

And this might come as a shock to you but the decision is not his to make. The president has made the decision and now it is up to Donald Rumsfeld to get the nation ready for a war. And that is what he has been doing.

Thank you for the links, they illustrate my point so very well.

So now you see why it's funny to hear Rumsfeld say, "No one wants war"?

No more funny than when I say that I don't want to pay my taxes. No more funny than when my Brother-in-law says he didn't want to sell his house.

It's like when you're at Martha's house, and the Luau Party that she's been planning for weeks is just about to begin, the first cars are pulling into the driveway--and she claps her hand to her forehead and moans, "Oh. My. God. How did I ever get into this? I don't want to have a Luau Party!"

The decisions that the president is planning have very serious consequences. I don't think he or Rumsfeld are laughing at the prospect of young men dying, of mother losing sons, of children dying from wayward bombs or all of the horrors of war. It may be funny to you but the administration including Rumsfeld take it very seriously.

Rummy's hilarious, too. "No one wants war..."

When Johnson bombed Hiroshima he had planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he didn't want to drop the bomb.

Before the Allies invaded Normandy Eisenhower planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he did not want to send those boys do their death.

You know, actions speak louder than words.

* snicker *

Your sense of humor is odd.

I don't find war or death funny. I don't find the plans funny. I don't find Rumsfelds remarks Ironic. He said himself that it is a difficult decision. It is a loose-loose decision.

But keep laughing.

Goshawk,

One last piece of advice, humor is subjective. Never try to explain it. It's best to just say "lighten up, if you don't get it then fine".

 

[Jedi Knight]

Re: Re: Why Donald Rumsfeld is funny.

I don't have any idea what it is you are trying to say. Does he want to have a war or not.

Donald Rumsfeld doesn't Really want a war.

Specious argument.

This does not prove that Rumsfeld wants to go to war. This proves that Rumsfeld is giving the presidents message to the nation and is preparing the nation to go to war.

If Saddam had cooperated then Blix would have said so. If the UN had said that Saddam was fully cooperating then war plans would have been put on hold. The UN would have jumped at the chance to say that Saddam was cooperating.

They prove intent not desire.

I have been busting my ass working weekends and nights so I can pay my taxes (I'm on contract and don't have any taxes taken out of my check). What do my actions speak of? They speak that I am motivated to pay my taxes. They don't prove my desire to pay my taxes. Trust me I DON'T WANT TO PAY MY TAXES.

My Brother in law just sold his home. He worked really hard painting it and fixing it up so that he would be able to sell it. What do his actions speak of?

Well he lost his job and didn't want to lose his equity. He loved his home, his friends, his children are sad that they are loosing their friends, his children were born there and he loved his back yard and garage. He now has to move into an apartment and he is really pissed. Trust me he DIDN'T WANT TO SELL IT! And you know what, he didn't say he didn't want to sell it at every opportunity. He said something once at a family gathering and then bucked it up and moved on. So yes, I do very much think your argument is specious.

Donald Rumsfeld is a decent man. He knows that people will die if there is a war. He understands the ramifications of this war and it bothers him. He wishes that there were another way. However...

And this might come as a shock to you but the decision is not his to make. The president has made the decision and now it is up to Donald Rumsfeld to get the nation ready for a war. And that is what he has been doing.

Thank you for the links, they illustrate my point so very well.

No more funny than when I say that I don't want to pay my taxes. No more funny than when my Brother-in-law says he didn't want to sell his house.

The decisions that the president is planning have very serious consequences. I don't think he or Rumsfeld are laughing at the prospect of young men dying, of mother losing sons, of children dying from wayward bombs or all of the horrors of war. It may be funny to you but the administration including Rumsfeld take it very seriously.

When Johnson bombed Hiroshima he had planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he didn't want to drop the bomb.

Before the Allies invaded Normandy Eisenhower planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he did not want to send those boys do their death.

You know, actions speak louder than words.



Your sense of humor is odd.

I don't find war or death funny. I don't find the plans funny. I don't find Rumsfelds remarks Ironic. He said himself that it is a difficult decision. It is a loose-loose decision.

But keep laughing.

Humor is subjective, if you find it funny then by all means, laugh.

Hey Randfan, you work for Rand Corp?

JK

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Why Donald Rumsfeld is funny.

Hey Randfan, you work for Rand Corp?

JK

No, but I like Ayn Rand, the Rand Corp's name sake.

 

[Russ]

Am I being trolled?

action like WWI action?

No

 

[Smalso]

When Johnson bombed Hiroshima he had planned for months. I suppose it was hilarious when he said he didn't want to drop the bomb.

Johnson?

 

[armageddonman]

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld tells the UN and NATO to quit being cowards and disarm Iraq or the US is going in with both barrels blazing.

So? Since when is someone who gives away biological weapons to a dictator like Saddam a moral authority?