Posts by Trauma

16

War Quiz

by joannadandy in

5. george bush has declared that "we have no fight with the iraqi .

evidence?

and al qaeda.

A Nazi on war...

by Xander in

Trauma_Hound

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Claim: Hermann Goering proclaimed that although "the people don't want war," they "can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders."

Status: True.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Origins: Another

timely quote in the vein of the apocryphal Julius Caesar warning about political leaders who can all too easily send the citizenry marching eagerly off to war by manufacturing crises that purportedly threaten national security and making popular appeals to patriotism. In this case the sentiment expressed is even more disturbing because it comes not from a venerated figure of antiquity, but supposedly from a reviled twentieth-century figure associated with the most chilling example of genocide in human history: Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief. We may be made somewhat uneasy by the idea that the head of a classic Swastika

civilization recognized 2,000 years ago that the populace could be manipulated into sacrificing themselves in wars at the whims of their leaders, but we're outraged (and maybe even scared) at the thought of a fat Nazi fascist flunky's recognizing and telling us the same thing.

The notable difference here is that although the Caesar quote is a latter-day fabrication, the words attributed to Hermann Goering are real. Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II . He was found guilty on charges of "war crimes," "crimes against peace," and "crimes against humanity" by the Nuremberg tribunal and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence could not be carried out, however, because Goering committed suicide with smuggled cyanide capsules hours before his execution, scheduled for 15 October 1946.

The quote cited above does not appear in transcripts of the Nuremberg trials because although Goering spoke these words during the course of the proceedings, he did not offer them at his trial. His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary . The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess:

Sweating in his cell in the evening, Goering was defensive and deflated and not very happy over the turn the trial was taking. He said that he had no control over the actions or the defense of the others, and that he had never been anti-Semitic himself, had not believed these atrocities, and that several Jews had offered to testify in his behalf. If [Hans] Frank [Governor-General of occupied Poland] had known about atrocities in 1943, he should have come to him and he would have tried to do something about it. He might not have had enough power to change things in 1943, but if somebody had come to him in 1941 or 1942 he could have forced a showdown. (I still did not have the desire at this point to tell him what [SS General Otto] Ohlendorf had said to this: that Goering had been written off as an effective "moderating" influence, because of his drug addiction and corruption.) I pointed out that with his "temperamental utterances," such as preferring the killing of 200 Jews to the destruction of property, he had hardly set himself up as champion of minority rights. Goering protested that too much weight was being put on these temperamental utterances. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was not defending or glorifying Hitler.

Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Last updated: 4 October 2002

12

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

by Trauma_Hound in

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01pent.html?pagewanted=1&th rumsfeld's design for war criticized on the battlefield

by bernard weinraub with thom shanker

corps headquarters, near the kuwait-iraq border, march 31 long-simmering tensions between defense secretary donald h. rumsfeld and army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the iraqi battlefield that the pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it.. here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared mr. rumsfeld to robert s. mcnamara, an architect of the vietnam war who failed to grasp the political and military realities of vietnam.. one colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region.

Trauma_Hound

wow TH nice cut and paste...good thing we have you or we would NEVER get any news on the war

Wow, nice sarcastic remark, I don't know what we would all do, with your enlightning remarks.

12

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

by Trauma_Hound in

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01pent.html?pagewanted=1&th rumsfeld's design for war criticized on the battlefield

by bernard weinraub with thom shanker

corps headquarters, near the kuwait-iraq border, march 31 long-simmering tensions between defense secretary donald h. rumsfeld and army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the iraqi battlefield that the pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it.. here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared mr. rumsfeld to robert s. mcnamara, an architect of the vietnam war who failed to grasp the political and military realities of vietnam.. one colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region.

Trauma_Hound

LOL: Words mean things, TH!

1.You do not support the US.

This is an outright lie, just because I don't support the Facist Pig in office right now, does not mean I don't support the US, I support the US more than you do, I believe in the constitution, which you seem to throw aside.

2. If you have your way, Saddam would be alive and well to terrorize his own people and others.

No if I had my way, we would have taken out the iraq leadership long ago, without going to war, I would have armed his oposition, which we haven't done.

3. You spam your ass off here, with anti coalition rubbish, painting the worse possible light of US and pro Nations actions.

I'm sorry the fact play out that way, but those are the facts.

4. You call those who support Iraq’s freedom from the Rat "baby killers"

Again another lie, I said Baby Killer Supporter, get it right pinko.

5. If you are not for Saddam, then you are a "Useful Idiot," for his ends.

What a load of horseshit. You should go have yourself tested, to see how many chromosomes your missing. I mean you are following someone that is a bleading idiot with power, the worst kind.

148

'You didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!'

by William Penwell in

jw
friends

a journalist's account of the killing of a car full of iraqi civilians by us soldiers differs widely from the official military version, says brian whitaker .

tuesday april 1, 2003 .

the invasion forces suffered another self-inflicted disaster in the battle for hearts and minds yesterday when soldiers from the us 3rd infantry division shot dead iraqi seven women and children.

Trauma_Hound

What nonsense! This requires stringent counter measures to protect our troops. To take your logic to its conclusion, then we are sitting ducks. Lets see, if a Van runs a check point...what to do? WHat would you do?
These "arm chair" Generals really crack me up. Its stupefying.

What it takes is putting barriers in the road, the soldiers were stupid not to have done this, and taken up positions away from the check point, an S barrier woulds suffice. A couple of APC's on the side do not make a road block. Funny coming from an arm chair politician.

12

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

by Trauma_Hound in

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01pent.html?pagewanted=1&th rumsfeld's design for war criticized on the battlefield

by bernard weinraub with thom shanker

corps headquarters, near the kuwait-iraq border, march 31 long-simmering tensions between defense secretary donald h. rumsfeld and army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the iraqi battlefield that the pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it.. here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared mr. rumsfeld to robert s. mcnamara, an architect of the vietnam war who failed to grasp the political and military realities of vietnam.. one colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region.

Trauma_Hound

LOL! Coming from a Red Diaper Doper Baby! (Tyrant, Mad Man Supporter)

LOL, man you are the definition of MORON, or did you not read the multiple times I repeated, I don't support saddam, once more, I don't support saddam, once more for clarification, I dont support saddam, do you get it yet? How many times do I need to repeat myself. You need to be whacked up side the head with a clue by four.

12

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

by Trauma_Hound in

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01pent.html?pagewanted=1&th rumsfeld's design for war criticized on the battlefield

by bernard weinraub with thom shanker

corps headquarters, near the kuwait-iraq border, march 31 long-simmering tensions between defense secretary donald h. rumsfeld and army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the iraqi battlefield that the pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it.. here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared mr. rumsfeld to robert s. mcnamara, an architect of the vietnam war who failed to grasp the political and military realities of vietnam.. one colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region.

Trauma_Hound

another news article with no comment for discussion? how many is that now t h? maybe you missed the threads about new war topics, and not simply turning this into a news channel..?.

Just because I don't comment now, doesn't mean I won't comment, I have commented on everything I have posted, so get off my back, baby killer supporter.

12

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

by Trauma_Hound in

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01pent.html?pagewanted=1&th rumsfeld's design for war criticized on the battlefield

by bernard weinraub with thom shanker

corps headquarters, near the kuwait-iraq border, march 31 long-simmering tensions between defense secretary donald h. rumsfeld and army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the iraqi battlefield that the pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it.. here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared mr. rumsfeld to robert s. mcnamara, an architect of the vietnam war who failed to grasp the political and military realities of vietnam.. one colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region.

Trauma_Hound

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01PENT.html?pagewanted=1&th

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

By BERNARD WEINRAUB with THOM SHANKER

CORPS HEADQUARTERS, near the Kuwait-Iraq border, March 31 — Long-simmering tensions between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on the Iraqi battlefield that the Pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage the war as they want to fight it.

Here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared Mr. Rumsfeld to Robert S. McNamara, an architect of the Vietnam War who failed to grasp the political and military realities of Vietnam.

One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of troops to the region. "He wanted to fight this war on the cheap," the colonel said. "He got what he wanted."

The angry remarks from the battlefield opened with comments made last Thursday — and widely publicized Friday — by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace, the V Corps commander, who said the military faced the likelihood of a longer war than many strategists had anticipated.

The comments echo the tension in the bumpy relationship between Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff.

Underlying the strains between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army, which began at the beginning of Mr. Rumsfeld's tenure, are questions that challenge not only the Rumsfeld design for this war but also his broader approach to transforming the military.

The first is why, in an era when American military dominance comes in both the quality of its technology and of its troops, the defense secretary prefers emphasizing long-range precision weapons to putting boots on the ground.

At present, there are about 100,000 coalition troops inside Iraq, part of more than 300,000 on land, at sea and in the air throughout the region for the war. Just under 100,000 more troops stand ready for possible deployment.

Even after the war, some experts argue that it could take several hundred thousand troops to hold and control a country the size of California, with about 24 million people.

Mr. Rumsfeld has argued that he adopted this approach for flowing forces to the region to prepare for war without upsetting the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts.

The idea was to raise pressure on Iraq until President Bush made a decision on whether or not to go to war, Mr. Rumsfeld has said.

Even some of Mr. Rumsfeld's advisers now acknowledge that they misjudged the scope and intensity of resistance from Iraqi paramilitaries in the south, and forced commanders to divert troops already stretched thin to protect supply convoys and root out Hussein loyalists in Basra, Nasiriya and Najaf. But they also point to the air campaign's successes in the past few days in significantly weakening the Republican Guard divisions around Baghdad. As one senior official said of the process that produced the war plan, as well as the pace and sequencing of troops, "It was a painful process to match the political and military goals."

One Army officer said General Wallace's comments — particularly that "the enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against" — were not meant to show defiance but merely express a view widely shared among American officers in Iraq, at headquarters units in neighboring Kuwait and back at the Pentagon. Some members of General Wallace's staff have expressed concerns for the professional future of their boss.

Mr. Rumsfeld arrived at the Pentagon vowing to transform the military, and senior aides promised to push aside what they described as hidebound volumes of doctrine in order to create an armed force emphasizing combat by long-range, precision strikes and expanding the most maneuverable military assets, mostly ships, jets, drones, satellites and Special Operations troops.

Many in the Army thought the defense secretary had declared war on them, which struck them as unfair, because the Army had invested as much brainpower as any other service in transforming itself — perhaps because it had to, since the Air Force, Navy and Marines were already more nimble.

In certain ways, the dissonance between Mr. Rumsfeld and General Shinseki is surprising, because the general was himself the leading advocate of reforming and modernizing the Army. In October 1999, General Shinseki pledged to reshape the service from waging war by slog and slash, calling for new theory and proposing new weapons to create a land force more agile and precise in bringing lethal force to the battlefield.

"On the substantive issues, Shinseki and Rumsfeld share a large agenda, about making the Army more deployable," said Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Shinseki was one of the first guys out of the block with the concept, and it fit the world view Rumsfeld brought to the Pentagon when he came in later.

"But their chemistry was just not great," Mr. O'Hanlon said.

But after he became defense secretary with the new Bush administration in January 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld made the word transformation his own and his vision of a more flexible and agile military often seemed to come at the expense of General Shinseki's Army.

For example, in an effort to find money for an arsenal of new, high-technology weapons, some of Mr. Rumsfeld's senior advisers proposed cutting 2 of the Army's 10 active divisions; it is still not known how seriously Mr. Rumsfeld considered the case, but the divisions survived.

Today, the war plan for Iraq was viewed by many in the service as diminishing the Army role, because it placed a premium on speed and shock and called for fewer ground forces to be in place when the war began, planning to call in more only in case of battlefield surprises and setbacks. But that takes time.

The Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, said today that Mr. Rumsfeld did not craft the war plan for Iraq with any intent to reward or punish an individual armed service, and instead sees "a mix of services and capabilities they offer." The war plan, she said, received "a careful review and approval by all the chiefs."

"As we have made very clear, the secretary does share the vision of a 21st-century Army that faces the unconventional threats of today with new and transforming capabilities," Ms. Clarke said. "The secretary has worked hard with the Army to make those sorts of critical changes as quickly as possible."

But what pushed General Shinseki afoul of the civilian leadership before this war began were his comments on the levels of force that might be needed to stabilize Iraq after the battles were over.

Pressed by Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Shinseki, who commanded the NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia, said several hundred thousand troops could be needed.

"Wildly off the mark," was how Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, dismissed the Army chief's comments. Mr. Rumsfeld was a bit more circumspect in his criticism, saying that the general had a right to his opinion, but that this one would be proven wrong. Their public comments were unusual and were widely interpreted in Washington as a rebuke to General Shinseki, who is scheduled to retire in mid-June.

William L. Nash, a retired Army major general and veteran of the first gulf war and the Bosnia mission, said of General Shinseki, "He is as fine a soldier as I've ever served with, and his key characteristics are loyalty, and professional competence."

General Nash, currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, added, "It is extremely unfortunate that he has not had more influence on the war planning and the allocation of forces."

148

'You didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!'

by William Penwell in

jw
friends

a journalist's account of the killing of a car full of iraqi civilians by us soldiers differs widely from the official military version, says brian whitaker .

tuesday april 1, 2003 .

the invasion forces suffered another self-inflicted disaster in the battle for hearts and minds yesterday when soldiers from the us 3rd infantry division shot dead iraqi seven women and children.

Trauma_Hound

You mean like you do all the time Thi Chi? Now go away, you supporter of baby killers.

51

The US Sedition Act Appropriate Today?

by ThiChi in

is the sedition act appropriate today?

now that we are at war, should this act be used to address some that oppose the war?

this question was put to me, i now ask for your comments.

Trauma_Hound

Slow Boy and TH:
Nice try...but you will have to do better than that. The fact is Bush, Blair and 49 other nations are making a difference. As I write, more evidence to connect Iraq and others to world terrorism is unfolding. You will not win.
You two can’t stand it. The facts and History are not on your side. Your appeasement to the Rats of the world did not work. The Eagles will win. The Rats will loose. By pontificating your fallacies , and supporting Rats like Saddam, it is not Bush, but you, who are the "Enemy Within"

Yawn, once again, the bushtonian, has nothing better to add or debate, so he has to call us saddam lovers. ThiChi let's get something straight, I don't support saddam, repeat after me, I don't support saddam, do you get it yet? One more time, I don't support saddamn, am I getting through to you yet, or are you autistic, woops don't want to insult autistic people. Facts and history are in fact on my side, I don't support killing baby's, and you seem to. I don't follow people with IQ's half mine, you seem to. 49 Nations? Is this like the last time you said 20 nations, someone else posted a list, and I started to punch holes in that list. So what 49 nations are actually fighting in this? The bushtonians said there were more nations then the first gulf war, this is utter crap on both fronts. There are only 3 nations with troops there, American, Britain, and Australia. There was no international consesus for this war, there is no arab backing like the first war. Bush is a chicken, how long do you think we'd be at war, if bush actually had to fight in it? Probibly not long.

Trauma_Hound

Posts by Trauma_Hound

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield