Quote:
Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
And if I replied saying "The conservatives are desparate to pin anything on Clinton. You conservatives are pathetic." and didn't address the larger issue, I would be behaving just like you.
Throughout this whole thread, you have refused to discuss the issue.
The issue is whether Rumsfeld's attempt to conduct cheaper wars is causing problems like this. The fact that Rumsfeld is trying to make US warfare cheaper and use fewer troops is not disputed by anyone. Several high-profile generals have disputed his policies publicly, and rumsfeld has defended himself publicly.
These reservists were apparently on an assignment they shouldn't have been assigned, doing something they weren't trained for. Something tragic happened, and I'm interested in discussing the event in the context of Rumsfeld's new way of conducting war.
If you don't want to join that conversation, then frankly I have no interest in hearing you spout off "all you liberals" this or that.
|
Here is my answer then: No
Rumsfelds policy has NOTHING to do with this, any more then Clintons did in my above quote. The only difference is no one tried to blame Clinton for it, like some are trying with Bush. I thought I was clear that I didn't blame Rumsfeld.
I've said no indirectly many times before, now I'm saying it directly.
I'm not sure what conversation I'm not joining here, but I'm being quite clear that armies do "bad things" at times. I don’t blame Clinton for soldiers actions, and I knew you wouldn't which is why I posted that bit of article. Its the liberals desperate desire to nail Bush for something that always happens in war that is the real meat of this discussion. There is nothing unique about these 8 men that makes them any different then the 9 men in the rape, (and I didn't post the whole article, there were more abuses).
I also wonder if these are the same Generals that thought we would need 2 million troops to invade Iraq, or 500k to invade Afghanistan. Generals always want more men, more guns, more supplies, more, more, more, its the nature of the job I think. Generals complain all the time about anyone who might cut their budget or tell them to make due, god knows they complained about Clinton, they complain about Rumsfeld (and Bush), and they will complain about whoever comes next.
So in case I'm not clear, no its not Rumsfeld's fault, and I really don't understand why you have to get so hostile. I don’t agree with the idea that somehow this wouldn’t have happened if Rumsfeld had spent a few billion more. You can't look at this only as 'how is this war being run' and draw conclusions on it, without looking at past conflicts and what happened during them.
This sort of thing happens in war, the US unlike most other countries does its best to make sure the abuses don’t happen, and punish those who commit them. End of story.