Rummy say's tragic days are "necessary".

Necessary for what?

Is he saying many of our troops have to die for them to accomplish their ends??

Fuck him and all those warmongers that sent our troops there.

Dude, you don’t even try anymore do you?

any chance you could, say consolodate these all into one or maybe two threads?? “Rummy’s latest assolic statement” or “Bush’s latest lie”???

won’t someone please think of the hamsters???

Perhaps in the next war we can get the enemy to agree to use only nerf bullets. Damn those poor Pentagon planners!

So, in a vicious guerrilla war there are going to be tragic losses sometimes? Color me shocked.

I don’t agree with the war, or the occupation of Iraq (even though I don’t see an alternative right now), but I don’t see why you would pit him for that statement. If you believe that our presence in Iraq is a good and important thing, as Rumsfeld does, then casualties are neccesary evils. I’m sure he’d prefer it if no American soldiers died…that wish is something people across the political spectrum can agree on, but its a sad truth that American soldiers will.

John, Mike, you are barking up the wrong tree. In all fairness, Reeder does not pretend he is enlightening you as to the tragic nature of war. He is pointing out the cruel absurdity of Rummy’s attempt to drape the veil of “necessity” over the corpses.

He is too smart a man not to know that his case for “necessity” is at best dubious, at worse, obscene.


I agree, but that is no reason to just run away now. I hate this fucking war and the dipshits fucks who dare call themselves my “leaders”, but we should not leave Iraq immediatly, for it would be as big of a crime as invading them in the first place.

I watched Rummy on the news yesterday morning and he keeps referring to the people shooting at us as terrorists, as does Bush. Are they really? I mean, we invaded the country after all. When you invade a country, doesn’t that give the other side the right to shoot back? I realize that it sounds a lot better to call them terrorists because we are fighting a “war against terrorism”, but I highly doubt that all of the people shooting at us belong to a known terrorist organization.

I actually agree with calling them terrorists. Resistance fighters don’t kill their own people.

What’s good for Afghanistan is good for all.

We are at war because we choose to be at war.

We are not defending our country. Tragic days? None worse that those in November, 2000.

It’s only necessary until Rumsfeld’s ass is on the line…

I’m going to disagree with Reeder and Rumsfeld on this. While there are terrorists in Iraq (eg, those who bombed the Red Cross), I can’t see calling anyone a terrorist if they are fighting the US troops. Guerilla warfare is not terrrism. Having said that, I wouldn’t call them “freedom fighters” either.

Now, if the whole opposition is centrally controlled and all the participants understand that bombing the UN and the Red Cross is simply a tactic that some are using, and is as equally justified as targetting soldiers, then I would change my mind on this. It’s a distinct possibility, but I haven’t seen the proof yet.

the Democrat in 2004 should have a campaign ad that is nothing but looped fotage of Rumsfeldt and Saddam shaking hands in the 80’s

Assume that Rummy still speaks for President Bush* and his administration regarding matters of defense. Let’s draft the Bush twins into the army and station them in Iraq. Then we’ll find out what the Chickenhawk In Chief thinks the defination of necessary is.

I can see the Western-Union telegram now…

Dear Parent/Spouse/Daughter/Son of PVT So-and-so,

I am deeply saddened to inform you of PVT So-and-so’s untimely death on his/her way home for some R&R.

Rest assured that it was necessary.

Your pal,

Ihmo, It’s just easier to say that if they oppose the US, they are, by default, “terrorists”. That way it’s kept nice and black and white, goodies and baddies bogeymen-will-come-and-get-you simple for the nightly news; no politics, no purpose/motivation/agenda; they are just “terrorists” who are engaged in “terror”. Why ? Because they “hate freedom” stupid!

To what ends they desire to bring “terror” upon us we don’t know – perhaps to end our “freedom”, though we’re not quite sure how they would do that. So, why they actually want to reign “terror” amongst us we’re not entirely sure either, but none of that matters because they are “terrorists” and they are the enemy of “freedom”. Indeed, the president tells us they “hate freedom” though we’re not sure why. But “terrorists” do “hate freedom” because the president says so and that means they’re baddies. And that’s all we need to know. They are dehumanised, faceless evil-doers about whom we need to know nothing save that they are “terrorists” who “hate freedom”. No other reasons or explanations are necessary.

What was the message again ?
Must be kind of weird to be a “terrorist” in your own country fighting against an occupying force, and all the while being accused by the US president of opposing freedom.

I don’t understand why the candidates aren’t raking his ass over the coals 24/7