I’m not clear as to how this rumsfeld’s fault.
While it is Bush’s responsibility as CiCit’s not really his fault either.
From what I understand Rumsfeld is more of a “big picture kinda guy.”
From Iran’s perspective, I think the MOAB would qualify…
“Shock and awe” – isn’t that what terrorists like to do?
Haven’t we been down this road before?
Don’t you EVER imply in any way, shape or form that I am a terrorist or associated with terrorists or terrorism.
SimonX, Richard Cohen goes into some detail about Rumsfeld’s responsibility.
Elvis, I missed the part about how it was his Rumsfeld’s fault that US soldiers were not appropriately supplied with rations.
Was it really necessary to mention that Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense? Whatever happens in his organization is his responsibility. Called “chain of command”, don’tcha know.
fault doesn’t equal responsibility
Bush, Commander in Chief, is responsible for Rumsfelds actions. The adult US populous is responsible for Bush’s actions. But this is only marginally related to what Ben posted.
Ben implied that Rumsfeld’s incompetence caused US soldiers to be w/o food.
Airman Doors, USAF: As a former professional purveyor of mass destruction, let me give you some advice. You’d better, for your own sake later on, come to grips with your job function, trooper. You are paid, by the US government, on behalf of me and the rest of your fellow citizens, to be ready to kill multiple innocent men, women and children all of a sudden on the orders of your superiors, without taking time to judge the situation yourself, using weapons which are not only designed for maximum lethal and destructive effect but also intended for maximum psychological effect on surviving comrades and countrymen.
That’s the same standard by which terrorists design their attacks.
Personally, I’m tickled to have such well trained and well prepared unconflicted-killers-of-the-innocent in our armed forces. God bless you all. But never forget the full sacrifice you’re making for your country— when you put on the uniform and took your oath to obey lawful orders, you relinquished any standing by which you can defend the morality of any mission or campaign you conduct which you did not yourself conceive, plan and order. Although you can never abrogate your personal right to decide your own individual actions in conducting your duty, there is no question that you do not have the right to decide whether the lawful orders you receive are immoral, terroristic or even stupid.
So you can disagree with rjung when he describes the terroristic aspects of our weapons and tactics. But you gave up any right to take that comparison personally when you signed your contract. You may wish to defend your superiors and/or military theory from that charge, but please try and shit-can the righteous indignation.
Thank you. That is all.
What on earth set that off?
Tell me that wasn’t implying what I think it was implying.
I guess I’m a terrorist. I guess I should now start indiscriminately bomb houses. I guess I shouldn’t even try to defend anyone from people who would try to kill them simply for being an American.
Or maybe I shouldn’t display any “righteous indignation”, since it has been determined that I am no better than the nuts that flew into the WTC, blew up the Khobar Towers, bombed the USS Cole, or blew up the embassies in Africa.
Whatever you say, guys. I won’t even bother to argue anymore.
Airman you selectively quoted (and reacted), snipping off the important part
Good thing, because you’re a long way from anything that could have been reasonably read into that statement. You might want to save that indignation for an occasion when somebody who actually is accusing you of being a terrorist. On this occasion, you overreacted.
It would be silly for me to be adamantly opposed to everything regarding the military, since I’ve made a big chunk of my livelihood in that field (most often in C3I systems, otherwise known as “radios and radars and other gear to keep our soldiers alive”).
On the other hand, let’s face it – from a linguistic standpoint, “shock and awe” is just a euphemism for “scare the shit outta the enemy” – and that is essentially what what “terrorism” is about (like, y’know, terror, like, “to scare the shit outta”).
But just so Airman doesn’t get his dander up any further, no, I’m not calling you a terrorist. If I were, there wouldn’t be anything ambiguous about what I wrote. 
And Iran fortifying its nuclear facilities to avoid damage from someone using an airplane to drop a big bomb on it is hardly a major stretch of the imagination, IMO.
I think a few of you might back me on this one, it’s likely Airman has found himself somewhere just east of Scylla; his outburst may very well indicate his own feelings of guilt. I agree with rjung, “Shock and Awe” in my mind is simply tantamount to terrorism.
What about Dresden, Frankfurt, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.? If annihilating a civilian center with the express purpose of terrorizing the population isn’t a terrorist attack, then what is?
Shock and awe do not equate to terrorism.
Shock and awe are meant to strike fear into combatants, not civilians.
DON’T EVER FUCKING FORGET THAT!
Terrorists have one major goal, to inflict sufficient casualties upon civilian targets so as to coerce public opinion out of fear. Any of you who are unable to distinguish between the two are incompetent to participate in legitimate discussion of the topic.
[sub]BOLDING ADDED[/sub]
THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT!
One of the principal features that distinguished and continues to distinguish our fighting troops from Nazi and Communist soldiers is their ability to refuse to comply with orders that are in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. It is the worst sort of mischaracterization to portray American military personnel as being mindless killing machines. The exact opposite is true. You should be ashamed to have typed such a thing.
America’s armed forces maintain strategic superiority over opposing militaries exactly for this reason. I do not know if you have read many assessments of WW III scenarios, but one of the most consistent features used to explain American tactical excellence is that our soldiers are permitted to think for themselves, even in the heat of battle. Kill strategies against old Soviet and current PRC troops all make pointed reference to the efficacy of decapitating strikes against officer leadership. Routine projections of kill ratios exceeding TEN TO ONE all include mention of how opposition foot soldiers are not allowed to think for themselves in comparison to American troops.
I think an open apology to Airman Doors is due in spades right about now. I am disgusted to think that people would intentionally confuse how terrorists deliberately target civilian populations with standard American war doctrine. xenophon41, our troops give their precious lives precisely to prevent the sort of evil mentality you are accusing them of having. SHAME ON YOU!
My impression was that Rumsfeld’s plan to invade Iraq with a too-small force resulted in overstretched supply lines. (In addition to all that looting of the world’s cultural treasures, of course.) The Joint Chiefs were against it, but Rumsfeld went ahead anyway.
You heard it here, folks.
DURING WWII AMERICA WAS A STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM, AS EXECUTED BY THE U.S. MILITARY.
Actually, you couldn’t be more wrong, and at the heart of it, I think, is a misunderstanding as to what exactly the term “Shock and Awe” means. I thought that particular nomenclature was a mistake from the beginning, telling a population raised on Star Trek that you’re going to “Shock and Awe” the enemy and they’re going to expect phasers on stun knocking out hundreds of Iraqis at once. What that particular phrase meant is that the U.S. was going to employ overwealming force against Iraqi troops, shocking them into being incapable of offering effective resistance to U.S. forces and aweing them with the capabilities of the U.S. military when compared to their own. Think of it like this: Suppose the Sharks showed up for a rumble with the Jets with baseball bats and the Jets were armed with Thompson submachine guns. Think the Sharks would be “Shocked and awed” by the superior firepower they were facing? The same holds true for the average Iraqi soldier: If you can shatter his confidence in his unit, his commanders and his army as a whole, he’s not going to offer very effective resistance, hopefull even surrendering outright, which happened in a number of cases. “Shock and Awe” had NOTHING to do with civilians, except in the sense that seeing their armed forces chewed up would hopefully cause them to rise up and “throw the bums out”.
TERRORISTS, on the other hand, have an entire different method of operation. Their goal is to terrorize the civilian population of their targeted nation to the point whre the targeted government is forced by popular opinion to change it’s policies. Terrorists never march onto the battlefield to fight their enemies mano a mano, indeed, they can’t, it’s why they utilize terror to begin with. Terrorism is a tactic employeed by the weak in an attempt to influence the strong. A terrorist will chose his targets without concern for their military validity, indeed, they want exactly the opposite. Offer a terrorist the chance to kill 100 soldiers in an army base or 100 babies in a daycare center, and they will chose the later every time. 100 dead soldiers will be quickly replaced. 100 dead babies may indeed cause enough people in the target population to say “Enough, give them what they want!”.
I hope all of you see the important destinction here. Indeed, if Airman or any other conciencious U.S. serviceman was ordered to indescriminately slaughter defenseless civilians, I would hope and pray to God that they would rightly refuse to do so.
Xenophone41 said:
U.S. service men and women are employed, as you say, to kill enemy combatants. “Innocent men, women and children” are NEVER the target. Some may die, it is true, but we will never set out to kill innocents*. Such an idea is repugnant to the professional Soldiers, Sailors, Riflemen and Airmen who make up the U.S. armed forces. We took extrodinary lengths NOT to harm civilians whenever possible during the invasion of Iraq, even to the point of passing over legitimate military targets because the cost to Iraqi civilians would have been too high. tell me, former professional purveyor of mass destruction, if you’re commander had ordered you to blow up a town of civilians for whatever reason, would you have done it? After all, as you say, it’s “your job”. I hope the answer is a resounding “NO”.
*Currently, so please save your references to Mai Lai and/or WWII carpet bombing. The former was a repugnant act in a repugnant little war over 30 years ago and the latter was due to technical limitations and an entirely different type of war and time period.
Could you go into more detail on the technical limitations?
Also, if the U.S. military has a policy of never, ever, targeting civilians, then what are all those strategic nuclear weapons for? Isn’t the entire point to be able to wipe out a city? (I mean, I thought that was the entire distinction between a strategic vs. a tactical nuclear weapon.)