Times o' London: Troops fear rummy's departure

why ask us.. who sacked rummy?

 

Yeah,

That is what the guys on the ground are taught to do, follow orders no matter how dumb they are......now the Generals they do the thinking, and there is much rejoicing about Rumsfeld leaving.

Rumsfeld was a HORRIBLE Sec of Defense, and the Bush Presidency will go down as the worst presidency in US history.

DD

 

This is not true. There were interviews earlier in the week where troops had the opposite reaction and hoped for new ideas to help them accomplish their mission. You know an article is biased when it has to make up incorrect facts.

 

I'm not trusting a limey newspaper. give me a real American source like Rush or Drudge

 

I don't know what my nephew who returned from serving with the Marines in Iraq a few weeks ago, thinks about Rumsfeld. I do know that he would be very happy if the mission in Iraq ended before he has to head back there.

The first part of his tour wasn't in the most dangerous of areas, and outside of a few mortar attacks they did alright. But things got worse, and as the unrest and insurgency grew their attacks were more frequent.

Finally the last month he was there was nightmarish, he said. It changed his life forever. His friend was killed and his unit had to go back into the combat area and recover the heliocopter and casualities, one of which was his friend. There were bullets whizzing at him the whole time, and they were returning fire, and he has said he would never be the same. But he did his duty, and returned fire, and did what he had to do.

He was very happy to get out of there. Its just too bad that he has to go back again for another tour.

For his sake and the sake of all the troops I am very glad that Rumsfeld is gone.

 

I’ve also seen interviews with men on the front line who said openly that Rumsfeld made mistakes and that they were happy with the change.

But when has Basso ever told the truth? Concepts like truth, justice and freedom are just rhetorical tools for him that at heart he pretty clearly has nothing but contempt for. I think Basso is entirely beholden to the Republican party and that in his mind anything he can say or do to try to defend them is justified in his mind, anything.

Some things he says are completely mind boggling, though. Why do you hate the troops sooo much Basso? How even now do you try to defend the butcher who sent so many of them to their needless deaths for the sake of his own political ambitions? Even US generals agree that this war is radicalizing even more people and making the problem of terrorism worse, and yet you have such little regard for the troops and their families, and even for the citizens of the US whose safety Rumsfeld has further jeopardised, that you would still openly defend him. You are certainly the most ghoulish member of this board. At least you’ve never claimed to be a patriot, not that I’ve seen anyway.

 

Having two family members up there pretty high in the military and both have had several deployments in Iraq, would disagree with you wholeheartly. One of which I just talked with the other day, after Rumsfield's departure.

 

He hasn't that I have seen either. But he has attacked the patriotism of others on this board.

 

I thought everything is wrong in that sentense, which makes Rumsfeld very wrong as a leader. Or if it came from a frontline soldier, everything becomes right?

 

Mr Rumsfeld “made decisions, he stuck with them and he did what he thought was right, whether people agreed with it, liked it, or not”, Staff Sergeant Frank Notaro said.

Yeah Sarge, but he was wrong. When people make bad decisions with negative consequences at their jobs, they get fired.

Well it was technically it was a Civil Service job and that's not really true for Civil Service jobs.

 

But only the ones who agree with your point of view, right?

 

And especially untrue for people in this Administration.

 

So some of the troops don't want to accept the truth that Iraq currently is unwinnable and the U.S. isn't willing to supply the troop levels necessary, never have from the beginning, to quell the violence. Nobody likes being on the losing side, but if peace and democracy are the necessary objects for winning the war in Iraq, then victory is no where on the horizon.

 

Since when "moral authority" equals "correctness" in English? I was asking whether the statement was right or wrong, not about his moral authority, wasn't I?

BTW, what if another frontline officer with absolute moral authority, who happens to stay in the frontline longer than this one in quote, welcomed the replacement of Rumsfeld? How do you judge right or wrong, by comparing the same ABSOLUTE moral authority?

 

I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.



(I disagree.)



This is easy to say now... and without a review of history past.

 

How would you feel if you are risking you life out there and then someone tell you what you are doing is totally pointless? I would bet many people would be pissed at the person who tell them that even if the other person is correct.

 

So do you get mad at the person stating the correct information, or would you be pissed at the moron who was responsible for the debacle? Rummy didn't listen to his generals. If they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear, he replaced them.

My former brother-in-law, is in his second tour of duty. Chalk up one more marriage destroyed by the Iraq war.

 

Not saying I agree with that, just point out why many soldiers would feel that way. I felt Rumsfeld should have stepped down long time ago. It is easy to get 1000 soldiers, it is very hard to get a capable general to take charge of things, he is obviously not a capable leader.