Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Donald Rumsfeld dies

«134

Comments

  • #2


    Lot of blood on his hands


  • #2


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


  • #2


    RIP, why do the good always go so young ?


  • #2


    Look like he found his known known.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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!


  • #2


    He was also involved in bringing us aspartame.


  • #2


    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?


  • #2


    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."


  • #2


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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    Good night sweet prince.


  • #2


    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,


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    He was also involved in bringing us aspartame.

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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


    xieann 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.


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


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

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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


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


  • #2


    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.


  • #2


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

    Who’s advocating pacifism?


Sign In or Register to comment.