Army Times, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps Times ALL CALL FOR RUMSFELD RESIGNATION

[Suff]

Don't these people understand!@!!!?? If Rumsfeld resigns THE TERRORISTS WIN!!



http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003352525




NEW YORK An editorial set to appear on Monday -- election eve -- in four leading newspapers for the military calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.


The papers are the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times . They are published by the Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc. President Bush said this week that he wanted Rumsfeld to serve out the next two years




This all could have been avoided. Truthfully. It should have never have come to this.

Further... This puts the Democrats in both Houses.

[PaceAdvantage]

The headline to this post is misleading. It makes one think that these papers are actually published by the military, which they most certainly are not....

[Suff]

[QUOTE]The headline to this post is misleading

Man have you allowed yourself to slip..



It makes one think that these papers are actually published by the military, which they most certainly are not


calling the Army Times by its name, The Army Times. Is not misleading.

Your lost at Sea.

[Secretariat]

Suff,

This pretty much says it all. A sad state of affairs.

[Suff]

Editorial


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=16&entry_id=10582

[Secretariat]

I don't expect GW tro back down. His hubris won't allow it to admit a mistake in his appointment of Rumsfeld. So be it.

The most torubling thing in the Editorial to me is this though:

"For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves."

..This reminds me of the bullshit South Vietnam troops. If these troops for two years won't get off their butts and fight then screw them.

[PaceAdvantage]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]

Man have you allowed yourself to slip..




calling the Army Times by its name, The Army Times. Is not misleading.

Your lost at Sea.


I stand by what I said....outside of the military, who the hell has EVER heard of the "Army Times" and whatever other publications you have mentioned. A civilian looking at this post would think that these publications might be official military periodicals....thus, it's misleading.

But that's ok, it's not like it hasn't happened before on here....

Don't take it personally. I never said whether or not I agree with the recommendation of these newspapers, did I? For all you know, I might think Rumsfeld should resign as well, but you don't know what I think, because I have never stated my opinion on this subject....

But, you think you know what I think, because you have formed a prejudicial opinion of me from what you THINK I have said in the past on this board. (Insert picture of Yogi Berra here)

I contend many folks have formed an impression of me from off-topic that is inaccurate at best, so I will forgive you for your rather insulting reply.

[JustRalph]

This reminds me of the bullshit South Vietnam troops. If these troops for two years won't get off their butts and fight then screw them.

I say we start shooting them. And give them 90 days to get with it. Or we have a new U.S. Territory.

[ljb]

PA,
I am with Suff on this one. The thread title is fine. Anyone who would think those titles were "official" U.S. government releases or documents isn't on this board. Fact that these publications all call for Rummy's resigination is the important point of thread.
Jr,
Sounds like you are still looking for world domination . Yessiree, "the U.S. Empire", has a nice ring to it don't you think ? Or how about "the sun never sits on the U.S. Empire" ?

[Suff]

[QUOTE=Suff]

. A civilian looking at this post would think that these publications might be official military periodicals....thus, it's misleading.

.

Thus , Its not. Not in any way.


However if it makes you feel better, next time I post something from the USA TODAY. I'll make sure and remind our foriegn members that the USA does'nt actually own the paper.

[ljb]

[QUOTE=PaceAdvantage]

Thus , Its not. Not in any way.


However if it makes you feel better, next time I post something from the USA TODAY. I'll make sure and remind our foriegn members that the USA does'nt actually own the paper.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

I am with PA on this one. Civilians are obviously going to think these are official pubs...........give me a break.

[ljb]

I am with PA on this one. Civilians are obviously going to think these are official pubs...........give me a break.
Here is a break, there are no civilians on this board. ;) The dudes that post here are savy and know bs when they see or spout it. You are not giving posters here enough credit.

[46zilzal]

cling to an idea even though current evidence says otherwise. Reminds me of the mommy going to see little Billy march with the other toy soldiers. He is hopelessly out of step, but mommy's perspective say otherwise as she states "Why are all those other boys marching out of step?"

JUST LIKE VIETNAM- make a huge mistake and continue down a disastrous road never realizing (though everyone else seems to have noticed) that you have totally miscalculated and your ego can't stand to change what is totally wrong.

[GameTheory]

The titles to those papers are misleading themselves, no doubt by design. Not knowing anything about them I'd assume they were all published by the same people -- and looking at your article I see that is true. So already you're acting as if there are 4 separate opinions in agreement when they really are all from the same editorial source. So you've got one editorial from an obscure source that markets itself to miltary people and you present it as if it has some special weight.

Yes, that's misleading...it would have been much more accurate to post, "Look, some dude doesn't like Rumsfeld, just like me."

[ljb]

So from now on when someone posts an opinon piece from say faux or the wsj it should be titled "look some dude likes Bush just like me"?

[GameTheory]

So from now on when someone posts an opinon piece from say faux or the wsj it should be titled "look some dude likes Bush just like me"?Yes, if the point is only to point out the existence of their opinion. The liberals on this board often post stuff with the implicit implication that we should give it weight merely by WHOSE opinion it is. Sec often posts stuff, "Look, some Republican doesn't like so-and-so" like the conservatives are supposed to think, "Oooohh -- a Republican? I'd better change my mind."

But normally when you post an opinion piece, you're asking people to actually consider the logic of the arguments being made -- it doesn't matter who is making them. So in that case it doesn't matter if it was from Fox or from the Dem Underground. But Suff seemed to be implying as if 4 different "weighty military sources" were calling for Rumsfeld's resignation -- that fact itself seemed to be the point, not any reasons why. If he wanted us to actually consider the arguments given by what was in fact one little-known non-military editorial source, he would have posted it more honestly by showing us the editorial itself. Instead, he gives an article ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THE EDITORIAL.

An article about the existence of an opinion elsewhere? How postmodern of him.

[Tom]

What he said.
Nothing to add - it was perfect.

[Secretariat]

I say we start shooting them. And give them 90 days to get with it. Or we have a new U.S. Territory.

I think we do one of two things.

Get the heck out of there in six months, and tell them to start doing their own fighting, espeically after reading this, OR we say, fine, we're taking your damned country. We get all the oil, and we're running your government if we have to defend it. You're a frigging colony. They're Iraqi mercenaries in thier own country.

Fighting to prop up a democracy for which we get nothing but dead and wounded soldiers and hige deficits.