Donald Rumsfeld dies

Zebra3

https://mobile.twitter.com/rumsfeldoffice/status/1410315512966434818?s=24

An evil man who brought death, injury, and misery to so many innocent people while lining his own pockets and those of his friends.

Good riddance.

TheValeyard

Lot of blood on his hands

Not as theatrical as Donald T (an easy hurdle) but openly amoral.

Hector Savage

RIP, why do the good always go so young ?

MAULBROOK

Look like he found his known known.

Dyr

I wonder what the Iraqi opinion of him is?

Saddam deposed. Sunni headbangers ousted from power. Democratic government installed. Autonomy for Kurdistan.

Dreadful stuff, I'd say they hate him.

donaghs

Dyr wrote: »

I wonder what the Iraqi opinion of him is?

Saddam deposed. Sunni headbangers ousted from power. Democratic government installed. Autonomy for Kurdistan.

Dreadful stuff, I'd say they hate him.

Given what some of them suffered in the first insurgencies after 2003, widespread kidnappings, murders - and then after all that, the rise and fall of ISIS … I’m not really sure what most of them think of him. I’d like to know!

Atlantic Dawn

He was also involved in bringing us aspartame.

Zebra3

Dyr wrote: »

I wonder what the Iraqi opinion of him is?

Saddam deposed. Sunni headbangers ousted from power. Democratic government installed. Autonomy for Kurdistan.

Dreadful stuff, I'd say they hate him.

Well, the dead can’t speak.

Maybe ask their families or the maimed.

Do Iraqis have the right to bomb America? Or is just rich, white Americans who have the right to bomb Iraq?

odyssey06

In the future Iraq will be forgotten about but some of his phrasings here might still be in use.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones."

Steve Carrell played him quite well in Vice. Showed his funny side.

Dyr

donaghs wrote: »

Given what some of them suffered in the first insurgencies after 2003, widespread kidnappings, murders - and then after all that, the rise and fall of ISIS … I’m not really sure what most of them think of him. I’d like to know!

Its a funny thing though isn't it? It never occurs to all the high horse John Pilger lite types that they have no clue how Iraqis feel about that war. Weird, eh? I guess it doesnt matter when it comes to not in my name and all that all craic.

odyssey06

donaghs wrote: »

Given what some of them suffered in the first insurgencies after 2003, widespread kidnappings, murders - and then after all that, the rise and fall of ISIS … I’m not really sure what most of them think of him. I’d like to know!

And lots of them suffered that fate under Saddam... but nobody cares about a Middle Eastern dictator killing torturing and kidnapping their own citizens

FTA69

Dyr wrote: »

Its a funny thing though isn't it? It never occurs to all the high horse John Pilger lite types that they have no clue how Iraqis feel about that war. Weird, eh? I guess it doesnt matter when it comes to not in my name and all that all craic.

Pilger spent a lot of time in Iraq and the Middle East in general and is probably better placed to speak about the place than most. Certainly more than the cheerleaders of war and ‘difficult decisions’ who never had to experience the effects of those decisions. I know loads of people from Iraq from all denominations, I’ve never met anyone who said invading the country for American geo-strategic concerns was a good idea.

Considering that led to the growth of ISIS and complete ruination of swathes of the country I don’t find that a surprise. Opposing killing hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of a pack of lies about WMDs isn’t some sort of woolly pinko liberalism - it’s basic humanity and common sense.

facehugger99

Good night sweet prince.

Gatling

Very Wiley and shrewd operator,,
Not a war criminal despite the clickbate sensational op ,
I'd imagine that they will honour him with an ARLEIGH BURKE being named after him,

FTA69

Gatling wrote: »

Very Wiley and shrewd operator,,
Not a war criminal despite the clickbate sensational op ,
I'd imagine that they will honour him with an ARLEIGH BURKE being named after him,

Not a war criminal by his own hand but something worse, someone who deliberately engineered a situation for self-serving reasons that actively facilitated a host of war crimes. Hundreds of thousands of dead, perhaps millions when we examine the knock on effects.

Hande hoche!

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

He was also involved in bringing us aspartame.

That's oddly fascinating. Had no idea of his role.

odyssey06

FTA69 wrote: »

Not a war criminal by his own hand but something worse, someone who deliberately engineered a situation for self-serving reasons that actively facilitated a host of war crimes. Hundreds of thousands of dead, perhaps millions when we examine the knock on effects.

Strange you seem to put the moral culpability on Rumsfeld and not a word re the actual perpetratots.
Its like assigning moral blame for the holocaust to Chamberlain v a lack of foresight or judgment.

Stihl waters

FTA69 wrote: »

Not a war criminal by his own hand but something worse, someone who deliberately engineered a situation for self-serving reasons that actively facilitated a host of war crimes. Hundreds of thousands of dead, perhaps millions when we examine the knock on effects.

Give a few instances where he did that for the uneducated amongst us(myself included)genuinely interested

FTA69

Stihl waters wrote: »

Give a few instances where he did that for the uneducated amongst us(myself included)genuinely interested

He shares a joint culpability for the Iraq War with a host of other figures. He was a key architect of the foreign policy that advocated it and planned it, he was a senior member of the administration that designed and executed it. He was the Defence Secretary at the time like. The politicians who plan the wars are far more culpable than the soldiers on the ground.

FTA69

odyssey06 wrote: »

Strange you seem to put the moral culpability on Rumsfeld and not a word re the actual perpetratots.
Its like assigning moral blame for the holocaust to Chamberlain v a lack of foresight or judgment.

What? I’m blaming Rumsfeld for planning a war in which mass war crimes and wholesale destruction were committed. If you want to use your (stupid) WW2 analogy then a better one would be pointing out the fact that Hitler didn’t kill anyone personally but presided over a series events that led to a lot of deaths.

nullzero

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not as theatrical as Donald T (an easy hurdle) but openly amoral.

Dearly departed Don and his NEOCON buddies (including the Trump critical George W) made the Trump administration look like the cast of sesame Street.

Jesus they were a bunch of evil swines (Cheney positively oozes contempt for humanity).

PNAC was a disaster for so many innocent people, and to think John Bolton succeeded in taking the moral high ground against the Trump administration after all the blood on his hands was somehow miraculously forgotten about.

Rumsfeld was some bollix all the same, no problem clearing debris off the pentagon lawn in front of the gathered media but couldn't be bothered to do his job properly and stop terrorist attacks to begin with.

odyssey06

FTA69 wrote: »

What? I’m blaming Rumsfeld for planning a war in which mass war crimes and wholesale destruction were committed. If you want to use your (stupid) WW2 analogy then a better one would be pointing out the fact that Hitler didn’t kill anyone personally but presided over a series events that led to a lot of deaths.

Are you assigning moral culpability to Rumsfeld for the deaths of Iraqis at the hands of ISIS and their precursors, as has been suggested in posts on this thread?

That was the gist of my Chamberlain reference and what I was challenging.
By action or inaction where is the link to Rumfeld and war crimes? That is what you havent shown.
So yeah less of the stupid digs as you just look so yourself.

Planning for war, declaring war is not the same as being culpable for actions committed by others during the war.

Mysterypunter

Tragic news of the death of Donald warmonger, 88 and died peacefully after condemning so many to an early grave, ironic that

Manach

Mr. Rumsfeld was a diligent Defence secretary who when judged in this capacity served the US Military well. I'd find it strange that people so blightedly toss about accusations of being an international criminal under law when, as I can vouch, few people actually attend those classes.

dd973

What? Someone like this has....died?

Isn't he supposed to amass $180bn and live until 135.

tdf7187

Manach wrote: »

Mr. Rumsfeld was a diligent Defence secretary who when judged in this capacity served the US Military well. I'd find it strange that people so blightedly toss about accusations of being an international criminal under law when, as I can vouch, few people actually attend those classes.

I'm not sure what classes you are referring to.

In Dec. of 2001 or January of 2002 the US had an elite squad of Rangers less than 1 mile from bin Laden's cave in the mountains of Afghanistan and he called them off.

And why did he do that one wonders? I can only surmise that with Osama bin Laden dead they would have had a much harder time selling Cheney's war for Iraqi oil.

markodaly

Does anyone else find it ironic that so-called pacifists are toasting the death of someone?

tdf7187

markodaly wrote: »

Does anyone else find it ironic that so-called pacifists are toasting the death of someone?

This is redolent of the Manichean thinking that is the curse of our age. Being against the invasion of Iraq does not make one a pacifist.

As FTA69 put it:

Considering that led to the growth of ISIS and complete ruination of swathes of the country I don’t find that a surprise. Opposing killing hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of a pack of lies about WMDs isn’t some sort of woolly pinko liberalism - it’s basic humanity and common sense.

FTA69

markodaly wrote: »

Does anyone else find it ironic that so-called pacifists are toasting the death of someone?

Who’s advocating pacifism?

Zebra3

odyssey06 wrote: »

And lots of them suffered that fate under Saddam... but nobody cares about a Middle Eastern dictator killing torturing and kidnapping their own citizens

And what were Rumsfeld’s views on Saddam when he was doing this during the 1980s?

biko

Never liked the man. A vital part of the Iraq invasion on Twin Towers Attack pretences.
US should have left Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

Beasty

Thread title amended

Normal One

Zebra3 wrote: »

And what were Rumsfeld’s views on Saddam when he was doing this during the 1980s?

He had a clear view here, looks jolly

Dyr

FTA69 wrote: »

I know loads of people from Iraq from all denominations, I’ve never met anyone who said invading the country for American geo-strategic concerns was a good idea.

Thats good because I didnt ask about how the Iraqis felt about "invading the country for American geo-strategic concerns".

The Kurds seem quite chipper about it all.

Tazium

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones"

He's what's known in the business as a horrible kunt.

Former Former Former

biko wrote: »

US should have left Iraq and Afghanistan alone.

Ah yeah, sure they were getting on fine until the Americans arrived. Sure a bit of genocide never hurt anyone hah?

Whatever about Iraq, Afghanistan was a whole other story and no-one else was rushing in to do anything about the Taliban.

rogber

A vile war criminal, just like Bush, Cheney and the rest of that regime. Good riddance

Retr0gamer

Former Former Former wrote: »

Ah yeah, sure they were getting on fine until the Americans arrived. Sure a bit of genocide never hurt anyone hah?

Whatever about Iraq, Afghanistan was a whole other story and no-one else was rushing in to do anything about the Taliban.

Which is all well and good if they American's went in there for alruistic reasons but they didn't. They went in to Afghanistan and Iraq to look like they were doing something about terrorism and get a polls boost while avoiding the actual threat that was in Suadi Arabia and even more so in Syria.

All they managed to do was pokethe hornets nest and fire up the jihadists working out of Syria.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

Does anyone else find it ironic that so-called pacifists are toasting the death of someone?

I don't know what any of this means. Not wanting to slaughter people doesn't make someone a pacifist.

Former Former Former

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Which is all well and good if they American's went in there for alruistic reasons but they didn't. They went in to Afghanistan and Iraq to look like they were doing something about terrorism and get a polls boost while avoiding the actual threat that was in Suadi Arabia and even more so in Syria.

All they managed to do was pokethe hornets nest and fire up the jihadists working out of Syria.

Like, that's great when you're sitting in Ireland. If you were living under brural Sharia Law in Afghanistan, you wouldn't be thinking, "man, I wish someone would come help us, but only if it's for the right reasons and they simultaneously fix everything else too".

Whatever you think about Rumsfeld (wasn't a fan myself), the idea that Afghanistan would be better off without intervention is a bit mental.

Retr0gamer

Is the world and Afghanistan really better off though? Countless thousands were killed and the country is still in conflict when america pulls out troops. There's a very real possibility of more violence breaking out and a return to extremist rule once america pulls out. And the invasion just fanned extremism in the middle east.

The world is a much worse place now thanks to those wars.

What was actually achieved other than a second gwb Jr term and money for rumsfeld and his contractor mates.

Timberrrrrrrr

Former Former Former wrote: »

Like, that's great when you're sitting in Ireland. If you were living under brural Sharia Law in Afghanistan, you wouldn't be thinking, "man, I wish someone would come help us, but only if it's for the right reasons and they simultaneously fix everything else too".

Whatever you think about Rumsfeld (wasn't a fan myself), the idea that Afghanistan would be better off without intervention is a bit mental.

Has anything changed for the good in Iraq/Afghanistan since the Americans invaded?

McGinniesta

What makes this worse is that George Bush, Barack Obama and William Jefferson Clinton will probably receive state funerals, despite their respective track records. I doubt the Donald is getting one somehow.

Rumsfeld gets slagged off on boards for being a war criminal. Irony indeed.

Timberrrrrrrr

McGinniesta wrote: »

What makes this worse is that George Bush, Barack Obama and William Jefferson Clinton will probably receive state funerals, despite their respective track records. I doubt the Donald is getting one somehow.

Rumsfeld gets slagged off on boards for being a war criminal. Irony indeed.

None of the four mentioned above did anything good for the people.of Afghanistan or Iraq.

ancapailldorcha

McGinniesta wrote: »

What makes this worse is that George Bush, Barack Obama and William Jefferson Clinton will probably receive state funerals, despite their respective track records. I doubt the Donald is getting one somehow.

Rumsfeld gets slagged off on boards for being a war criminal. Irony indeed.

Rumsfeld is the one being discussed. His name is literally two thirds of the thread title. I've no idea why we've people making up claims nobody made to defend him along with the usual whataboutery.

Odhinn

A long read, but worth the effort

“The whole idea that Rumsfeld projects—‘We’re here to protect the nation from terrorism’—is an oxymoron,” Taguba said. “He and his aides have abused their offices and have no idea of the values and high standards that are expected of them. And they’ve dragged a lot of officers with them.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/25/the-generals-report

markodaly

FTA69 wrote: »

Who’s advocating pacifism?

Everyone toasting the death of Rumsfeld.

RulesOfNature

Rumsfeld, Cheney, and to a lesser extent George Bush, were all part of the neo-con grift. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan has benefited no one else except the executives and shareholders of Exxon and Haliburton, and the private military contracts given to their friends.

As of now, the Taliban has won, there are millions of refugees flooding Europe from destabilized nations and more will come from the oncoming regime war caused by people like Rumsfeld.

I am ambivalent towards his death. But I am utterly disgusted at how he lived.