Talk:Donald Rumsfeld
|
|
| Contents |
Vandalism
Actually, I don't need to...I just restored it to how it was before.
It appears that the page has been vandalized. I have put up a little notice.
Some mention of the rumsfeld doctrine needs to be made, to refrence the page refering to it --maximusnukeage
I reverted the image to an earlier version. The white background just doesn't go along with the whitespace on the page. --Jiang, Talk 06:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The Kissinger quote isn't in the cited source. Could somebody try to clarify it, or find a better source?
Secretary of Defense
"Having served under President Gerald Ford, he is both the youngest and oldest Secretary of Defense
- What does this mean exactly? That he was the youngest when he started and that he's now the oldest? Am I the only one who had to re-read a few times to get it? Could this be made clearer..? MikeCapone 04:56, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I think it has been clarified now. --Lowellian 03:38, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
The following text has been moved here pending souring information. Who is "reportedly"? Thank you.
- "In 1976, Rumsfeld was responsible for transferring George H. W. Bush from envoy to China into the position of Director of the CIA. This was reportedly an attempt to scuttle Bush's presidential ambitions, and led to a certain animosity between the two."
Nobs 14:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- pending souring information (heh, Freudian slip?)
Degree
In "(AB, 1954)", what does "AB" mean? -- Mpt 18:38, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- It means that he graduated from Princeton University in 1954 with a degree as a Bachelor of Arts.
Selected quotations?
It seems to me that "quotes" in a wikipedia article are supposed to be clever or witty things a person has said. Not these bizarre, damning, selected quotations with square brackets and so forth. They make the article look awkward and blatantly biased. user:J.J.
I wouldn't hesitate to include infamous quotes if they were really important (Chamberlain's "Peace in our time", for example). While I suspect the quotes currently selected for Rumsfeld are part of a subtle hatchet job, he did say them and they are of interest. I guess the counter-balance is to find some more positive/brilliant quotes. --M4-10 18:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
- No fan of Rumsfeld I, but I agree the quotes seem to be a (not so) subtle hatchet job rather than giving a good overall picture. I suspect there are quotes that could be better selected to be just as damning and more 'big picture'ish. Anyway, there are plenty of web pages of incriminating Rumsfeld quotes to link to.Gzuckier 15:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Excellent page, well done to all concerned. --bodnotbod 13:54, May 9, 2004 (UTC)
Abu Ghraib
There's far too much detail about Abu Ghraib in here IMO. The stuff about what he knew, when, doesn't need to be here especially considering that it's all breaking news changing day by day anyway. Especially considering that there is almost no other info about his military campaigns. There wasn't even any mention that he ran the Iraq War at all until I just added it. Mdchachi|Talk 15:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
- War crimes tend to be in that class of important things an encyclopedia should note. orthogonal 05:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- War crimes... Aww! Poor terrorists... Perl guy 19:58, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Justice is a blind woman holding a scale. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not a matter of "poor terrorists". The picture is much bigger than that. When ignoble emotions are allowed to take precedence over reason, one's actions become counter-productive. Kevin Baas 17:05, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
- Nobody has at all shown in a convincing manner that any war crimes took place. All we have is bunch of C/O forcing the prisoners to do frat house type hazing. For this several investigations have been started/concluded and the people held responsible are being punished. It's silly to blame Rummy for actions of some immature soldiers. Rummy himself has said that he dissaproved of of what took place at Abu Ghraib Klonimus 03:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Justice is a blind woman holding a scale. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not a matter of "poor terrorists". The picture is much bigger than that. When ignoble emotions are allowed to take precedence over reason, one's actions become counter-productive. Kevin Baas 17:05, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
- War crimes... Aww! Poor terrorists... Perl guy 19:58, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
- War crimes tend to be in that class of important things an encyclopedia should note. orthogonal 05:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Geneva convention
On June 17, 2004, Rumsfeld admitted during a news conference that he had personally ordered two prisoners to be concealled from the International Committee of the Red Cross, one at Camp Cropper, at the instigation of CIA chief George Tenet - in apparent violation of the Geneva Convention.
Where is the evidence that this violated the Geneva Convention? Who was the prisoner and do we know if the Geneva Convention applied in his case, i.e., was he a legal combatant captured wearing the uniform of a signatory nation? Because if he wasn't, the Geneva Convention explicity states he would not be protected under the Geneva Convention. TimShell 08:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rumsfeld was widely criticized for the issue, that should be reported. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court ruled that the treatment of prisoners by the Bush administration violated US law. Get-back-world-respect 16:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Tim, I think you are misinformed about what, according to the Geneva Conventions, constitutes a protected person:
"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." -Part 1, Article 4, GCIV
Kevin Baas | talk 17:38, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
Perhaps the 'Articles' section should provide some sort of disclaimer or notification that some of the articles linked to are POV. -Fogger 22:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Military Service
Is it just me, but there is no mention of his military service, considered for both John Kerry, and President Bush there are extensive sections, shouldn't there be even a basic mention of Rumsfeld's Service in the US Navy? PPGMD
Mr Rumsfelds' Naval survice was "truncated". Therefore the original mention of "three Calander years of Navy service". It seems that he, Mr. Rumsfeld wast TAD on an U.S. Army Post. His personal actions toward a "femail U.S. Army person" was not appreciated. A complaint was made and Mr. Rumsfeld was then in "hac" for his personal actions to the young U.S.Army person. Should this complaint have gone to Courts Marshal, it was likely tolead to a conviction! So he used his influence and exited the Navy quietly through the side door. My source was a serving Army Person from that Army Base. I find no reason to believe that he lied or had anything to gain by such a disclosure. S// G.E. Anderson USMC Serial :1054898 FMF Korea 1950/51
- Fine, if we are going to leave this unsubstantiated rumour on this Web site then I will comment upon it. Why isn't this comment signed? Who wrote this? Why don't you come out and state who you are? I will tell why you don't because you are lying. This is a flat out BS rumour and you are using Wikipedia to put it on the Internet. Step up and state who you are. Step and state what information that you have to back this up This is just simply misuse of the Wikipedia system to get a flat out bald-faced lie onto the Internet. Why hasn't any respectable newspapers know about this allegation. You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie. Until you provide some type of hard evidence then this is a lie. If it put into the article I will tear it immediately and if it is put back in then I will rip out the damn lie again.-----Keetoowah 02:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie" *Cough* *cough* Rama 08:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Irrelevant flame war about Kerry, Gore, France
- Since you say "Kerry is a loser and so is Gore" without providing references, according to your initial statement, I assume you mean that they are great men, right ? But what does it have to do with the present topic ? Rama 14:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Of course the fact that Kerry is a loser and Gore is a loser has nothing to do with the current topic--just like your previous *Cough* *Cough* comment has nothing to do with current topic. If your comment did have something to do with the current topic then please explain what the heck that is and also Heinz Kerry is shrill pig.----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Saying that something which is not documented is false is a trivial logical fallacy. I am sorry not to have made my remark more explicit. I also should say that I find your insistance to compliment these Kerry people extremely odd, but since it would likely draw us further from the topic of the article, I won't ask you what you mean by that :) Somebody is a dirty pig to you too and cheers ! Rama 14:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keetoowah, you should probably stop assuming that anybody who tries to develop Wikipedia articles following the policy of neutral point of view and adds content that is critical of the current US administration is necessarily a supporter of Kerry or Gore. Not everybody is interested in petty US political squabbling. David.Monniaux 14:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, exccccuuussee MEEEE! Not! Look if you don't like it you don't have to read it. Also, the original point of this discussion was a rumour placed on this particular Talk page about Rumsfeld. So if you have anything useful to add to that discussion let's hear. What information do you have??? Do you feel better that you lectured me? I haven't changed one bit, but I was just wondering if it gave you some kind of feeling of power??? Look if you have anything, I mean anything at all constructive to add to the discussion about the rumour that started this thread then let's hear it.-----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. I looked at your background and I see that you are French. I'm so sorry for you. What's it like living in a former world power that is nothing but an impotent, second-rate country with an inferiority complex??? Wait don't tell me, from your comment I already know. It tees you off that no one and I mean no one pays any damn attention to you any more, so much so that you have to buy Saddam's oil off of the black market and invade third world countries like the Ivory Coast and then lecture Americans. But Americans don't care!!!! We just laugh at you and ignore you. Have A Frog Day!!!------Keetoowah 15:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mmmh. Perhaps you don't care, but you've just violated Wikipedia's policy against personnal attacks. Remember that repeat violations will get you blocked, or banned altogether.
- I did NOT attack you personally. I did NOT violate any policy. That is a figment of your imagination. I attacked the country of France. Now, back to the article. You keep telling me to focus on the article but neither you, David.Monniaux or Rama have explained why the rumour, which is the subject of this tread, should be on the Rumsfeld Wikipedia page. As far as I can tell I have asked both of you for your input on that topic at least two times each and I haven't got a respond to that topic yet. I have received is a lecture from David.Monniaux explaining his personal opinion that I should not refer to "Kerry is a Loser" and from Rama about logical fallacy of my argument. But I haven't heard one comment from either one of you on the actual topic of discussion, the substance of the matter, which is the rumour listed above about Rumsfeld. Remember you really shouldn't lecture someone about sticking to the facts at hand unless you yourself actually comment on the facts at hand, which you haven't done yet. I will repeat. Unless there is some evidence provided for the Rumsfeld rumour then it will NOT go into the article and if anyone puts it in the article then I will rip it out.-----Keetoowah 17:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that this kind of attitude is unlikely to make you more popular: your statement was very clearly a personal attack against David.Monniaux ("Wait a minute. I looked at your background and I see that you are French. I'm so sorry for you. (...)"). In any case, racist and xenophobic rants are not more allowed than personal attacks. David.Monniaux already suggested that you refrained from making heavy allusion to other political personalities in an obvious attempt to annoy hypothetical supporting users -- which was your only response after I pointed a serious weakness in your initial argumentation. As for it, the unconfirmed piece of information will be investigated by users which would be interested before it will go into the article or be forgotten. Because the community in its entirety wants it this way; not because somebody entitles himself defender of the article. Rama 17:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As for the rest, I will not answer to personal attacks that try to bring in irrelevant factors to the issue at hand. David.Monniaux 15:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was about to make a similar remark, but David beat me to it. Perhaps we might want to focus on the discussion and let othe factors aside. Rama 16:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For some reason I doubt that he could have gone through without being dug up during this nomination process. And there are many errors with your little type up, among them being unsigned, which is a big red flag in Wikipedia. PPGMD 15:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)