• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rumsfeld's at it again!

My guess is Rumsfeld _doesnt_ want more war because it actually hinders his sweeping plans to modernize the military. He has been trying to get these plans started ever since he came on board and unfortunately afghanistan and iraq have delayed them.
 
corplinx said:
My guess is Rumsfeld _doesnt_ want more war because it actually hinders his sweeping plans to modernize the military. He has been trying to get these plans started ever since he came on board and unfortunately afghanistan and iraq have delayed them.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed the part where our army was second to other nations. I sorta thought we were the model for a modern army. Silly me! I'm sure the only reason Rumsfeld wants a stronger army is so he WON'T use it.

The reason we went to Iraq was to send a message to the rest of the world: we can kick your ass, and we will if we want to. The international protests against war in Iraq were music to Rumsfeld's ears. That meant that the rest of the world heard the message loudly and clearly. In Rumsfeld's twisted mind, the rest of the world should go to bed every night fearing the might of the US.

But I do agree with your statement that Rumsfeld plans to modernize the army - if by "modernize" you mean substantially increase defense spending. This has been a cornerstone of his beliefs for many years. His name is attached to the following:

"Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "

The above may sound reasonable to you, but it scares me. It is a stepping stone to establishing US hegemony. Not my idea of a better world. "Moral clarity..." - what a pompous statement. Call it for what it is: Might makes right. The ends justify the means. My country, right or wrong. Insert big puke here.
 
DrChinese said:


It is a stepping stone to establishing US hegemony. Not my idea of a better world.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Would you prefer UN hegemony?
 
DrChinese said:


I guess I missed the part where our army was second to other nations. I sorta thought we were the model for a modern army. Silly me! I'm sure the only reason Rumsfeld wants a stronger army is so he WON'T use it.
Click to expand...

We have a great military but its still inefficient. We have learned much about warfare in the past 100 years. However, we still have a military with too many bad habits and paradigms from the cold war and even ww2. We have shifted strategy away from what some call "big army" thinking, however our logistics, bases, and a command structure are still geared for the "big army" mentality.

In short, we need a needle and not a sledgehammer. War is surgery now and not an onslaught. The Iraq conflict was the prrof of concept (with Panama serving as an earlier example) of this. We have the thinking in place, we just need to restructure to reflect it.

Have you read the Rumsfeld plan?
 
Why not? Would you prefer UN hegemony?
Click to expand...

This is a false dilemma isn't it? There are more options than US or UN hegemony.

As for why not, I suspect it might annoy a few people.
 
Jim Lennox said:


There are more options than US or UN hegemony.
Click to expand...

No? I thought the goal of a lot of "progressive" thinkers was to give the UN more power in governing the world. Or to eventually have a global government.

What other options are there?

I think global government is inevitable.
 
a_unique_person said:


You know, the US only has 5% of the world's population.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing, Ill store that tid-bit in my file of trivial facts. :)
 
Yeah, but its the best 5% quality wise!
Click to expand...

So you're saying your population (i.e. people) is 'better' than any other country's?

Isn't that the definition of racism?

Yep, thought so.

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Click to expand...

From here

But don't worry, you don't believe that race accounts for differences in human character.

Arabs are the same as americans aren't they?
 
Jim Lennox said:


So you're saying your population (i.e. people) is 'better' than any other country's?

Isn't that the definition of racism?

Yep, thought so.
Click to expand...

Strawman, the people in the US come from many different backgrounds and races.
 
Tony said:


Strawman, the people in the US come from many different backgrounds and races.
Click to expand...

Then let's replace racism with supremacism as in

"Supremacist: an advocate of supremacy of a particular group (as in race)" from Webster's Dictionary.

Is it OK to call you and EvilYeti Supremacists now?

Zee
 
Tony said:


What kind of supremacist?
Click to expand...

Gee, your short time memory doesn't reach back more than a few posts?

The kind of supremacist that believes that the US (as the group of people who make 5% of the the world population, i.e. the group of US citizens) are also the best 5% quality wise.

Zee
 
ZeeGerman said:


Gee, your short time memory doesn't reach back more than a few posts?

The kind of supremacist that believes that the US (as the group of people who make 5% of the the world population, i.e. the group of US citizens) are also the best 5% quality wise.

Zee
Click to expand...

so what kind of supremacist would that make him? Not one based on race.
 
ZeeGerman said:


How about Nationality?

Zee
Click to expand...

Ok, mabey. I dont want to speak for evilyeti. But why is thinking you are better than everyone else a bad thing? If he is wrong you should be able to demonstrate why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom