Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rumsfeld Lied BIG TIME re 'post war' Iraq compared to Germany

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
protect freedom impeach bush now Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-05-03 07:37 AM
Original message
Rumsfeld Lied BIG TIME re 'post war' Iraq compared to Germany
Edited on Fri Sep-05-03 07:40 AM by protect freedom impe
Rumsfeld is a proven liar.

And his LIES just get BIGGER and BIGGER.
This time Rummy revises(lies) world history to fit his
failure in the PNAC occupation of Iraq oil fields.

Not ONE death in post-conflict Germany, nor Japan, nor Haiti,
nor the 2 Balkans.

NONE !!!!

- - - - - - -

quote :

From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany and Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan caseswas zero.

end quote


"ZERO".


Yet Iraq cWar has had more than 150 US soldier deaths since
The White House Squatter landed on his photo-op aircraft carrier
to declare the 'war is over'.



- - - - -


more excerpts -


In the west, the Allies found that Werwolf was a fiasco. Bunkers prepared for Werwolf operations had supplies "for 10-15 days only" and the fanaticism of the Hitler Youth members they captured had entirely disappeared. They were "no more than frightened, unhappy youths." Few resorted to the suicide pills which they had been given "to escape the strain of interrogation and, above all, the inducement to commit treason." Many, when sent off by their controllers to prepare terrorist acts, had sneaked home.

That's not quite the same as the Rumsfeld version, which claimed that "Today the Nazi dead-enders are largely forgotten, cast to the sidelines of history because they comprised a failed resistance and managed to kill our Allied forces in a war that saw millions fight and die."

It's hard to understand exactly what Rumsfeld was saying, but if he meant that the Nazi resisters killed Americans after the surrender, this would be news. According to America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germanyand Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan caseswas zero.

So, how did this fanciful version of the American experience in postwar Germany get into the remarks of a Princeton graduate and former trustee of Stanford's Hoover Institute (Rumsfeld) and the former provost of Stanford and co-author of an acclaimed book on German unification (Rice)? Perhaps the British have some intelligence on the matter that still has not been made public. Of course, as the president himself has noted, there is a lot of revisionist history going around.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-05-03 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
1. And, there is more...

Another article on Rice's misinformation:
http://hnn.us/articles/1655.html

One view of postwar German fixing:
http://hnn.us/articles/1648.html

Had another one talking about de-Nazification and over a million applications the Allies had to go through until they just said the hell with de-Nazification. Much about how we had no real plan for postwar Germany, either, but that could be more excusable, all things considered. Can't find it right now, though.

At any rate, parallels between Iraq and Germany rather consistantly fall apart, except that we had no plan in either case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-05-03 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. the real differences
would comeup with some damning indictments of the present administration having to do with top down planning, goals, quality of leadership, allies. Switch Bush and FDR and you get the picture, except that Bush would have had to have been removed to win the the war in the first place- and fast before they ruined the military leadership.

They would have re-Nazified(minus the party logos) the Western sector more like what Russia did with the East Germans- and never let go- and no UN at all, only NATO. Maybe some pre-emptive nuke strategy but they would have been too slow and too chicken with American troops in Europe. Like NK. The right wing insurgence would have abandonned European imperial totalitarianism for the American model of dumbed down democracy. We wouldn't have even felt the defeat by the real enemy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 03:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC