BF2S Forums 2 terms in service as Sec Def, Thanks Rummy.

ATG wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia?  Good job!

Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world.

SpaceApollyon wrote:

Why do people consider the attack on Pearl Harbor to be an act of terror?

oug wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Hardly, the Iraqi insurgents are former Iraqi army/republican guard/fedayeen soldiers.  They simply shed their uniforms for terrorist ones.  These arent your poor little Iraqi peasents running around with guns.  They are well funded, and well trained in the art of guerilla warfare.  Get your facts straight before you spew your liberal diatribe. . . . . or better yet STFU!!

Try proving your own points before making accusations. Tell us about these "terrorist uniforms" for example... lol

Last edited by fadedsteve (2006-12-09 10:46:03)

fadedsteve wrote:

Rumsfeld dealt with the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor, considering the circumstances, he did a pretty good job!

Stingray24 wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

fadedsteve wrote:

Rumsfeld dealt with the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor, considering the circumstances, he did a pretty good job!

If he had been doing his job properly it wouldn't have happened. 'Defense' secretary? all he ever did was attack.

  The job of the Defense secretary does not entail defense alone.

Naughty_Om wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

Sorry, but Rumfuck can lick my ass.

sergeriver wrote:

I'm surprised ATG thinks Rumsfeld did alright.  The guy sold weapons to a dictator 20 years before he invaded his country because the dictator had WMD's.  How can you consider him a patriot when this war costed US trillions and deteriorated US image around the World.  He didn't win a single battle, that credit goes to the US Army members.

fadedsteve wrote:

Trust me, when my republican ass speaks, your liberal ass should listen! Thats all you need to know!

Despite all the at-odds-with-reality praise once lavished on Rumsfeld for his supposedly brilliant management style (2002’s The Rumsfeld Way: The Leadership Wisdom of a Battle-Hardened Maverick probably won’t be meeting the test of time), nonpartisan studies and government audits have long shown Rumsfeld to be a less-than-able Pentagon steward. In 2002, for example, Bush’s own White House Office of Management and Budget initiated the President’s Management Scorecard, a sort of quarterly report card assessing the top management of 25 major federal agencies and departments.

It uses a “Stoplight Scoring System,” with green for success, yellow for mixed results, and red for unsatisfactory. Wheeler notes that the DOD’s columns are more often defined by red and yellow than green. “The last time I checked, DOD ranked 24 out of 25—hardly a ringing endorsement,” Wheeler says.

Another solid indicator of the true nature of Rumsfeld’s legacy can be found in the files of the Government Accountability Office, the congressional investigative arm. Of the hundreds of GAO investigative reports devoted to the Defense Department on Rumsfeld’s watch, 25 deal in some way with Iraq. The other 861 have titles that, in many cases, indicate that Iraq wasn’t the only crisis crying out for Rumsfeld’s attention. Some pull no punches (“DOD Wastes Billions of Dollars through Poorly Structured Incentives”); others are, intentionally or not, drolly understated (“Hurricane Katrina: Better Plans and Exercises Need to Guide the Military’s Response to Catastrophic Natural Disasters”). It’s also hard not to be struck by the frequency with which subtle-yet-pointed phrases like “actions needed,” “issues require attention,” and “room for improvement” appear. (“Oversight,” for example, often appears in contexts that indicate a marked lack of the practice.)

Though the GAO organizes its reports by subject matter and agency, it also pinpoints “High Risk” areas, which it defines as activities with “greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.” In this area, Wheeler notes, “Rumsfeld’s DOD has earned itself more GAO High Risk reports on failed management than any other federal agency.”

This is particularly true for the Pentagon’s business operations. Though hardly as attention catching or viscerally provocative as Iraq, how the Pentagon spends and accounts for its money may be the most critical component of national defense. Such is GAO’s view, anyway. Alas, it’s not one Rumsfeld has cared much about. The result, according to GAO, has been ruinous, with “billions of dollars provided to DOD wasted each year because of ineffective performance and inadequate accountability.” Indeed, not one “military service or major defense component [can] pass the test of an independent financial audit because of pervasive weaknesses in financial management systems, operations, and controls.” As David Walker, GAO’s chief, noted in recent congressional testimony, his organization has repeatedly suggested that Rumsfeld create a new Pentagon post—that of chief management officer—to begin straightening all this out. Rumsfeld never obliged.

fadedsteve wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Wow, under his command you didn't lose a single battle against poorly trained, ill-equiped, technologically inferior militia?  Good job!

Hardly, the Iraqi insurgents are former Iraqi army/republican guard/fedayeen soldiers.  They simply shed their uniforms for terrorist ones.  These arent your poor little Iraqi peasents running around with guns.  They are well funded, and well trained in the art of guerilla warfare.  Get your facts straight before you spew your liberal diatribe. . . . . or better yet STFU!!

Rumsfeld dealt with the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor, considering the circumstances, he did a pretty good job!  He dealt with more than any defense secretary I have ever seen, so I give the guy the benefit of the doubt!  He is human, therefore not perfect!

fadedsteve wrote:

There have been mistakes made by this administration, I am not disputing that. . . .

I agree, and have said before that we should have finished Afghanistan before we went into Iraq.  However, at some point, we would have had to deal with Iraq.  Whether it be with Saddam or his sons, the regime in Iraq would have had to be dealt with.  Its a mess in the middle east, and has been for hundreds of years!!

It may sound harsh, but we should threaten nukes, and fight fire with fire ENOUGH OF THE TALK, TALK HAS GOTTEN US NOWHERE!! Pandering and being the nice guy hasnt gotten the desired response we have been looking for.  The jihadists want war, and war is what we should give them! Unabashed combat, reminisent of WWII. . . .Carbet bombing of large persian/arab cities, tactical nukes if necessary, ground forces with very to little ROE as far as dealing with terrorist strongholds.  Its harsh and to some illogical, but that is honestly the only way we can win. . . .we wont win by drawn out negotiations, we wont win with the UN, we wont win by imposing sanctions, we wont win by policing the region!

Germany/Japan had to be demolished completely to get rid of their anti semetic, facist, war mongering state's they were in!!! Today is no different with Iraq, Iran, North Korea etc etc!! They need to be completely destroyed and rebuilt up from scratch!! You think Germany or Japan would have stopped their plans hadnt they be completely beaten?? I can tell you the answer is no. . . .

These jihadists WILL NOT STOP, and in todays overly politically correct bullshit society, we cannot beat these people P E R I O D!! We have the man power, the machines, the means, but do we have the guts?? The guts are the most important part to winning the war!!!! Frankly, we dont have the political leaders/society that have em'!! George Patton is probably spinning in his grave right now. . . . .

fadedsteve wrote:

It may sound harsh, but we should threaten nukes, and fight fire with fire ENOUGH OF THE TALK, TALK HAS GOTTEN US NOWHERE!! Pandering and being the nice guy hasnt gotten the desired response we have been looking for.  The jihadists want war, and war is what we should give them! Unabashed combat, reminisent of WWII. . . .Carbet bombing of large persian/arab cities, tactical nukes if necessary, ground forces with very to little ROE as far as dealing with terrorist strongholds.