Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rumsfeld: If Gadhafi Stays, U.S. Reputation Damaged, American Enemies Emboldened
ABC News ^ | 3/27/11 | Joshua Miller

Posted on 03/27/2011 11:40:08 AM PDT by Nachum

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last
To: Nachum

Prestige damage?? more than electing a commie nincompoop President? and a Nitwit Sectary of state?


51 posted on 03/27/2011 5:34:21 PM PDT by Cheetahcat ( November 4 2008 ,A date which will live in Infamy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill

Yeap, and in this case we should not be there for ‘saving face’, but for a real agenda. I don’t like this one ...one bit.


52 posted on 03/27/2011 6:10:22 PM PDT by HollyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bean Counter
“Princes ought either be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so the the injury done to a Prince ought to be so severe that his vengeance cannot be feared.”

Niccolo Machiavelli


"In war there is no substitute for victory."

Douglas MacArthur
53 posted on 03/27/2011 6:47:39 PM PDT by Renderofveils (My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music. - Nabokov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

It’s the height of stupidity to continue a war that aids our worst enemies in order to try to salvage a reputation that can’t be repaired under Obama.


54 posted on 03/27/2011 7:16:24 PM PDT by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Why can’t Rummy, Bolton and Chuck Norris go over there and kick the Shiite out of these idiots.

Or would sending all three be too much?


55 posted on 03/27/2011 9:00:30 PM PDT by Vendome ("Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it anyway")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
I am astounded by the series of conservatives from Rumsfeld to Bolton to Palin who are calling for Gaddafi's ouster with not a word about the Brotherhood.
Palin too? (Link, please.)
56 posted on 03/28/2011 3:32:01 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

I think you grossly oversimplify neocon thinking with your “Munich Syndrome”. It completely ignores the question of “why attack this dictator and not that one”.

I think that the neocons are grossly misguided in their view of the world and the need for the US to involve itself so deeply in so many places in the world, but I think their motives are much more complicated than your “Munic Syndrome”.

Nice try at a theory, but I don’t think it holds much water. Bush and Rumsfeld didn’t go into Iraq because they thought Saddam was on the march, Hitler-style. They went in because they thought they saw an opportunity to spread Western Democracy to a bunch of lunatic savages who were on the path to possessing nuclear weapons.

Again, I agree with you that their thinking was grossly misguided, but, again, I don’t think “Munich Syndrome” explains that thinking.

As for Obama, I would say “that’s a completely different kettle of fish” except for the fact that all the neocons are siding with him, which makes me think that whatever ideology the neocons ever had — whatever plan or worldview they ever had — is so flawed that it has devolved into agreement with one of the biggest blunderers in the history of human civilization.

F* Obama and F* the neocons who agree with his disastrous foreign policy.


57 posted on 03/28/2011 3:43:23 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
Get the hell out of that place and let the Fenchies do what they want.

Well, we both know that ain't going to happen. :(

58 posted on 03/28/2011 10:10:08 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
It completely ignores the question of “why attack this dictator and not that one”.

I think that's fairly easy to figure out - it's a combination of strategic value (based on geography and natural resources) and the expectation of easy and cheap victory. Iraq was a target because they expected it to be a rerun of Grenada and Panama. Or the liberation of Kuwait and Iraqi Kurdistan.

They went in because they thought they saw an opportunity to spread Western Democracy to a bunch of lunatic savages who were on the path to possessing nuclear weapons.

They thought the only problem with Iraq was Saddam and his inner circle. Unfortunately, they were were wrong. The problem extended to tens of thousands of Iraqis (and hundreds of thousands who provided logistical support for them). We did not encounter that problem with either Japan or Germany because we killed millions of their troops and millions of their civilians. By war's end, we had killed everyone who wanted to fight and weren't afraid to get killed doing so. The effort came a cropper because instead of killing as many Iraqi troops as we could during the initial invasion, we let them surrender and come back as guerrilla leaders and trainers. Iraq is a tiny taste of what Japan and Germany would have been like if we had managed to compel a surrender and Allied occupation in the initial stages of WWII - all the fighting age alpha males were alive and spoiling for a fight. At the same time, we couldn't have slaughtered the Iraqi army en masse without getting lambasted by the press (in an echo of the Highway of Death). Besides, weren't we in Iraq as liberators?

Insoluble conundrums like this are why Iraq was a big mistake - we more or less had a blank check to pulverize Japan and Germany because of the tens of millions of civilians and soldiers their armies had slaughtered. What would have been our excuse for killing millions of Iraqis - the only way we could have attained the kind of submission obtained from Japan and Germany?

59 posted on 03/28/2011 11:14:21 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Palin too? (Link, please.)

"Win it means Gaddafi goes" at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2693718/posts

60 posted on 03/28/2011 8:50:04 PM PDT by Kennard (io)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-60 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson