Rumsfeld: We don't need the UK - Page 2

Demerzel · March 11, 2003, 19:12

I like to use a Monty Python "Life of Brian" analogy here..

"Whatever did the British do for us?"

Starchild · March 11, 2003, 19:13

We also brought colonial rule, tribal warfare, and racism dontchaknow. Oh, and scattered indentured Indian workers across the world, thousands of miles from their homelands. Divided up the world according to how easy it was to rule, not what the people we ruled wanted. Forced our way into countries. Backstabbed, intimidated, and harrassed foreign leaders and, usually, brutally crushed any attempt at self-rule among colonial populations (until relatively recently when our heart just went out of it).

Sten Sture · March 11, 2003, 19:17

I watched his comments live, and this thread certainly takes his comments in a different tone than they were stated. He was asked about US capabilities should Britain, for some unknown diplomatic reason, not be able to participate. What is he supposed to say? The US has zero capabilities? or that the Brits are part of the Axis of Evil if Blair decides that they need to change course? Of course not. I am no Rummy fan, but he handled the questions today fairly well.

Arrian · March 11, 2003, 19:19

That's what I was thinking... why was this blown up as a "Rumsfeld insults the British" thing?

-Arrian

PLATO · March 11, 2003, 19:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Starchild
We also brought colonial rule, tribal warfare, and racism dontchaknow. Oh, and scattered indentured Indian workers across the world, thousands of miles from their homelands. Divided up the world according to how easy it was to rule, not what the people we ruled wanted. Forced our way into countries. Backstabbed, intimidated, and harrassed foreign leaders and, usually, brutally crushed any attempt at self-rule among colonial populations (until relatively recently when our heart just went out of it).

Well I won't argue with you on these points because you are correct. I just maintain that the benefits of British Colonial rule out weighed the negatives. Don't get me wrong...its time has definately passed.

PLATO · March 11, 2003, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
That's what I was thinking... why was this blown up as a "Rumsfeld insults the British" thing?

-Arrian

Why indeed? (check the source...it was the Guardian)

Sten Sture · March 11, 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
That's what I was thinking... why was this blown up as a "Rumsfeld insults the British" thing?

If the journalists troll it, I guess it sells newspapers... You'd think that Poly posters would understand trolling!

Arrian · March 11, 2003, 19:28

Yeah, I do, the question was rhetorical. The answer was obvious (thanks for stating it, though

)

-Arrian

Drake Tungsten · March 11, 2003, 20:46

This thread just shows that even the intelligent posters on the board are starting to lose their minds. I'm getting really sick of this "rush" to war...

DanS · March 11, 2003, 22:27

Geez, the Guardian is reading way, way too much into this. I just watched the press conference and it was so innocuous that you have to wonder whether some people are trying to stir up trouble.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/forei...912493,00.html

Oerdin · March 11, 2003, 22:47

The Guardian doesn't even try to be objective. We've known that for a long time.

Oerdin · March 11, 2003, 22:48

BTW does anyone have a link with the Rumsfield's original words without the third party interpritations?

Urban Ranger · March 11, 2003, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Sten Sture
I watched his comments live, and this thread certainly takes his comments in a different tone than they were stated. He was asked about US capabilities should Britain, for some unknown diplomatic reason, not be able to participate. What is he supposed to say? The US has zero capabilities? or that the Brits are part of the Axis of Evil if Blair decides that they need to change course? Of course not. I am no Rummy fan, but he handled the questions today fairly well.

I watched it too, and it looked like a major foot-in-the-mouth scenario.

He could have said something like, "There is no reason to believe that the British will be unable to participate at this moment."

Man, even a rookie like me could have done it better.

GePap · March 11, 2003, 23:59

Rummy should limit what he says about things not pertaining to the military. He has already said so much that even if he might not "mean it", it will get printed as a slur of some type. Once you establish a tract record, don't expect it to go away too soon.

The question is how far will the Us and Uk push this vote this week? till friday? Perhpas they will have to change the March 17 deadline to March 24 (they rule out beyond March). Man this, war just keeps getting pushed back and back.

Ted Striker · March 12, 2003, 00:02

This is a journalistic troll, pure and simple.

Sensationalist soundbites to get people to turn their heads and say, "oh I can't believe that."

Secondly the damn article quotes the GUARDIAN of all sources.

This is like when newspapers come out with articles with crap like, "US plans to invade Canada," and then we find out that the Pentagon has a contingency plan for invasion of any country on earth. **** there are probably plans to invade Florida or some ****.

Rumsfeld did fine.

Urban Ranger · March 12, 2003, 00:03

Have you watched the video Ted?

Drake Tungsten · March 12, 2003, 00:08

I usually consider the Guardian a quality paper despite it obvious bias, but this was really piss-poor journalism. Mountain out of a mole-hill...

Ted Striker · March 12, 2003, 00:10

Haven't seen the video.

Elden · March 12, 2003, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
He told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decides not to go to war with Iraq.

Such as forcing Australia to make up the numbers...

Ted Striker · March 12, 2003, 01:59

Just saw an interview with a British Commander in Kuwait:

"We're ready to go, and, frankly, let's get on with the job."

Ted Striker · March 12, 2003, 02:01

Today two U-2 jets had to turn back, because the Iraqis expected only one.

When asked about the incident, Rumsfeld said, "that's not unreasonable."

Pretty good response.

Ted Striker · March 12, 2003, 02:01

UK!

TheStinger · March 12, 2003, 04:13

The problem with we Rumsfeld said is that it gives the impression that the US knows more about what the UK is to do than our PM. It doesn't help the accusations that we just do whatever we are told.

I'm sure he was trying to help, he just didn't

KrazyHorse · March 12, 2003, 04:38

That's Donald Rumsfeld.

A force for good.

He clears up any confusion in the minds of Britons as to their status.

HershOstropoler · March 12, 2003, 05:11

Blair is desperately trying to get support for his policy of siding with Washington, risking his career, and Rumsfeld says "well, I guess you won't make it Tony... but we don't need you, anyway."

How this is not damaging, I do not know. I was baffled when I heard Rumsie say this, even he can't be so stupid...

TheStinger · March 12, 2003, 05:21

He was probaly one of those who pusged the policy in the late 80's early 90's that Germany was more important to the US than the UK. He might just not care about keeping a good relationship eith us.

KrazyHorse · March 12, 2003, 05:46

He's just an idiot with diorrhea of the mouth, Stinger.

But remember that he's one of the biggest policymakers in this administration (at least from what I've seen).

So think about how close you want to get to his position.

MOBIUS · March 12, 2003, 07:47

So, not content with alienating almost the entire World, the Bush admin is setting about its allies???

WTF???

In talking about the possibility of the UK not participating, Rumsfeld has handed the UK opposition (which is about 80% of the population BTW!) a golden opportunity NOT to participate!!!

Blair is so weak at home that he can't even sack a cabinet minister that has seriously criticised his support for a war in Iraq, for fear of losing control of his party!

Way to go Rumsfeld - pull the wool under Blair's feet whydontcha...

There's thousands of British troops already concerned that the public is against this and now the US says 'we don't need them anyway...'

It's perhaps not a direct insult against the UK, but I can't think of a more unhelpful thing to say in helping Blair right now - it's imbecilic! He's a politician dammit - he could have dodged the question, trotted out a pre prepared stock answer or flat out lied.

Whilst I am not in favour of telling the world to go f*ck itself and go in all guns blazing as the US has wanted from the get go, I do realise the potential need for the future and this is so counterproductive!

Firstly, there is now no chance of even getting a UN moral majority - if countries like Mexico and Chile etc see that the UK might not even participate itself, why should they vote for the resolution? Why should Turkey risk her neck and reconsider her opinion?

Extreme US diplomatic arrogance has turned even most of her allies against her - this is the US Suez crisis...

Poker players do not reveal their hands until the end...

As for you donkeys bleating on about the Guardian's 'biased' reporting, look past your own bias and check out other sources such as the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2842463.stm ...

Better yet, watch the interview and put yourself in Blair's shoes - I would be pissed as hell if I were him!

F*cking amateurs!

The Viceroy · March 12, 2003, 08:25

To put the record straight, most Brits are well aware of Mr Rumsfeld's political abilities .. and so were not at all annoyed with what was said (apart from those that like to make some issue out of this) . .I personally watched the briefing, thought Rumsfeld made a mistake, but waited for the reversal .. which followed quickly a few hours later.

As for the idea of the US going alone.. well, they would be fools in my mind if they had not planned for such a scenario .. what if Blair was assasinated, and somebody took over who reversed everything ?? ok, a rather hypothetical scenario, but you can't plan the removal of a dictator, and not factor that kind of stuff in.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that such plans will not be required, and that the US will go into Iraq to liberate its people with the British supporting them all the way to Baghdad ..

My advice to Rumsfeld :- if even the British are aware of your abilities in diplomacy .. you may want to think before speaking now and again !! it helps.

Solly · March 12, 2003, 08:45

I think Britain will go in if it gets majority of the 15, but the US have here given Blair an escape if a majority at the UN isn't given and the US decide to go anyway.

The majority will be bought anyway, regardless of which way they vote.