I'm sorry I meant PBS.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. In any case Rumsfeld will go when Bush goes and barring the unforseen not before.

No. Just STEED. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Your omitting one little detail, he wants a lighter (meaning smaller) more flexible force. Lighter just doesnt work. How many places are we commited at now? The green line can only be stetched so thin. Enlisitments or tour's being extended indefinatly, and tapping into the IRR are signs that reality isnt' matching his stupid ideas.
Now if we had only a small incident here or there that cropped up, yah, fine, he's crap works, but when were commited over the damn place, No it doesn't. He needs to flush the **** out of his head and get back into reality.

No lighter doesn't mean smaller, it means less reliant on heavy armored forces. You should be familiar with the capability gap that exists between light forces like the 82nd and heavy like the 1st AD. That's what the Striker brigades were supposed to be about.

Then why did i hear crap about Rumelesfiled wanting to downsize our forces to match his ****ing vision in the past? I seriously hate that guy with a passion. From acounts ive read he's a total arrogant ******* to work with. it's his way or the highway in all things, and doesnt listen to his people very much.


edit:
some half assed reading:

It's the Manpower, Stupid
The president's recent speech about "military transformation" makes no sense.
http://www.slate.com/id/2119867/

Is Rumsfeld Bored or Tired?
His latest, sad plan to transform the military.
http://www.slate.com/id/2134207/

Rumsfeld Surrenders
The QDR dashes his dreams of military transformation.
http://www.slate.com/id/2135343/

Defending Rumsfeld From the Generals
But just a teeny little bit.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140318/

He should have pulled 38,000 out of South Korea and put them on the Iranian border. The combined forces in Spain, Germany, Italy, Britain, and Japan (something near 20,000 total) on the Syrian border. You go to war with the army you've got. And you tell all those "host" countries that they can either back us, or deal with their own foreign policies.

The guy should have pushed for re-deployment, just as Bush should have done.

It's the STEED syndrome. :lol:

STEED would make a fantastic "Workers Union" Boss :yep:

New Zealand needs lots of STEEDS! :D

If you keep reading biased accounts you cite its small wonder you have the opinion you do.

I'm sure that if the European Union was a country then it would have a foreign policy. As it isn't... it would be a little odd don't you think.

Stop calling yourselves the leaders of the free world, and the rest of the world might oblige.


Seriously though.

European Countries (note the Plural Rockstar) have foreign policies, but I wouldn't expect Rockstar or any non Andorian on this board to understand the intricasies of Andorian Political Affairs, just as many of us here would have difficulties in understanding the Republican policy regarding the bannana trade with African East Coast countries. But we know that such policies exist even if we have not personally seen them.

And now for the general (eg, not Rockstar orientated) rant

To be blunt, the critisism on this board comes down to one single level. Do people have the right to debate issues concerning other countries. Given most of us here take an interest in military affairs, the answer should be simple.

I can't help but feel that the majority of people who say that "Euros" should not debate Donald Rumsfield do so because they feel their debating position is vunerable and baseless, and are worried that this is exposed. It is one of the oldest political tactics in the book. Claim your opponent is unpaitriotic, an outsider, a rebel and appeal to the base Hobbesian fears of your audience. Those people who have the self confidence to believe they can debate the issues clearly and more importantly believe that they are right never seem resort to such tactics.

I would suggest that those whose patriotism, disposition or indeed egos are so fragile don't risk offense by debating on these forums. Its hosted on a server in Texas, a constituent state in a country which believes in open debate and the open flow of ideas - not in censorship based on nationality.

I defy you to find an unbiased news source that doesnt have an agenda in the background somewhere! :lol: CNN? Nope. MSN? Nope. BBC? Nope. Certainly NOT newspapers like the stars and stripes, or any other gorvermnet run or funded news source. There is no such thing as an unbiased news source.

Ive read enough of about rumesfield, not just from slate. I like slate because they back up their commentary with evidence, which makes it a bit more beleiveable. But, getting down to the basics, how many SecDef's have had so much brass speak out against him? I can think of one, just before the vietnam era (Aka "wizkids"), but i can't think of anymore.

My point is it sets a precident when so much brass pipes up pubically, and theres obviously a reason for it. Brass speaking out publically against the SecDef as they have against Rumesfield. is, as far as i know, highly unusual.

The Brass has always had problems with it's civilian leadership. Google Edwin Stanton, Louis Johnson, John Calhoun or Lindley Garrison for examples.